HomeMy WebLinkAbout0600 instead would receive the house for an estate of ten years
during which time husband and wife would pay half of all
expenses.
This final judgment is reversible on its face. An
award of lump sum alimony creates a vested right that survives
the death of the wife and is neither modifiable nor terminable
upon remarriage. Gordon v. Gordon, 335 So.2d 321 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 324; and Cann v. Cann,
334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Lump sum alimony should -
not be ordered unless the spouse being required to pay it is
financially in a position to do so without impairing his or
her economic status. Bradley v._Bradley, 327 So.2d 253 (Fla.
r
4th DCA 1976). Here, the Court could not award the home to
the wife as lump sum alimony and then condition this award of
lump sum alimony on the husband's making money out of the
sale of the jointly owned business. Further, the Court
could not assume a positive net worth on the part of the
I'~, husband in one part of the final judgment and then recognize
the very real possibility that he might make no money out of
the sale of the business in another portion of the judgment.
r The judgment, on its face, is inconsistent and is erroneous
as it affects the rights of both parties. -
The final judgment is reversed in its entirety and -
r r.
the matter remanded for further proceedings in accord with
this opinion.
i REVERSED AND REMANDED. 440
4 f
s ~ 1960 JUN I l 11~ 9~ 25
9
f FIIE~ /?h0 RrtQl;pE~
St LUCIE COUMTY.f~A.
CLEm CIRCUIT
COUST
• AECCAp YERifIF.h._ -
e
I
a
LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
t
- `
3 . 800K ~ PAGE
F
1
_
`