Yes. Providing the court makes the appropriate findings and includes them in their Order. In Sellers v. Sellers, 36 FLW D1863b the First DCA reversed a denial of permanent alimony to the Wife and reversed the award of the Husband’s share of the marital home to the Wife finding that the issues were interrelated and the court “probably” used the house as lump sum alimony but did not clarify and make the appropriate findings. The court may award the home as lump-sum alimony in lieu of permanent alimony if they justify it on the record with findings of Wife’s need and Husband’s ability to pay; and stating that such an award would be unreasonable if the Wife’s income was insufficient to meet her household expenses, including the mortgage. The award of the Husband’s marital interest in the marital home to the Wife presumably was lump sum alimony on a marriage that was just shy of 17 years- the time period triggering a presumption of entitlement to permanent periodic alimony. The case was remanded with directions for the court to clarify and make the appropriate findings.
About Me
Elizabeth "Beth" Is a cum laude graduate of the University of Miami Law School. She received her JD in 1997 following a psychology degree from USF earned Magna Cum Laude in 1994. She was named to USA Today's Best and Brightest; and was featured in a cover article in the Wall Street Journal on May 7, 1997. She was a partner at Conroy Simberg for years before going into private practice. She is currently the managing partner of Wolt & Associates, P.A. and practices in the areas of Business Law resolving disputes, creating & reviewing contracts and working in collections. She also practices Family Law including divorce, adoption and post dissolution actions. She currently lives with her husband, Salvatore Russo, in Fort Myers, Florida.Subscribe To This Blog
