HomeMy WebLinkAbout0596 - f
E
i
i
moved for rehearing and clarification, conceding error in the
conditional lump sum alimony award, but contesting our reversal
of the other aspects on grounds that appellant, by-failing to
include a complete transcript in the record on appeal, failed ,
to demonstrate-error. The absence of the transcript is irrele-
vant, however, as the trial court's misconception of lump sum
alimony law appeared on the face of the final judgment. Applegate
v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fia. 1980). Our
reversal of all the financial matters is not predicated on actual
error in each ruling,but rather on their interrelation with the
conditional lump sum alimony award. As.this Court stated in
Bradley v. Bradley, 327 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976);
[W]e reluctantly find the trial court
committed error in awarding lump sum alimony ~ ,
to the appellee and we therefore reverse the
final judgment insofar as the lump sum alimony
is concerned. However, since other as ects
of the final ud ment ma have een in uenced
~ t~ swn a~imon awar we remand t i~
cause to erm t t e tria court to re-assess
e matter an tae urthe'rtestimony i e
eems it necessary to properly adjudicate
the issues involved. (Emphasis supplied. )
See also Winner v. Winner, 370 So.2d 845-(Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
I
In accordance with our prior opinions herein, the
final judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the
i
~ case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings con-
sistent with this opinion. Other than as indicated above, all
requests for rehearing and clarification are denied.
~ AFFIRMED IN PART ; REVERSED IN PART ; REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
i
z
- kk
f
i
LETTS, C.J., and r:00RE, J., concur.
-2-
B~~II tAGE X171)