From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Medlin v. Medlin

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 12, 1995
656 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Summary

reversing award of lump sum alimony where judgment considers some but not all of the factors listed under 61.08

Summary of this case from Ondrejack v. Ondrejack

Opinion

Nos. 94-0174, 94-0613.

May 31, 1995. Rehearing Denied July 12, 1995.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, John D. Wessel, J.

Joel M. Weissman of Weissman Manoff, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jeff Brown of Lavalle, Brown Ronan, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.


The trial court's final judgment awarded the wife $300,000 as lump sum alimony without indicating whether it is in the nature of an equitable distribution or support. At the same time, the judgment contains no listing of marital assets, assigns no values to them, and does not attempt to set up any scheme of distribution. Moreover, although the judgment considers some of the section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (1993), factors for an alimony award, it fails to consider "the financial resources of each party, the nonmarital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each."

We thus follow Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), and remand with instructions to comply with section 61.08(1).

REVERSED.

GUNTHER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Medlin v. Medlin

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 12, 1995
656 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

reversing award of lump sum alimony where judgment considers some but not all of the factors listed under 61.08

Summary of this case from Ondrejack v. Ondrejack
Case details for

Medlin v. Medlin

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE Q. MEDLIN, APPELLANT, v. RUTH V. MEDLIN, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jul 12, 1995

Citations

656 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

Ondrejack v. Ondrejack

A failure to consider all of the mandated factors is reversible error. See Segall v. Segall, 708 So.2d 983,…