From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brane v. Brane

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 28, 1975
319 So. 2d 620 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

Opinion

No. 75-746.

September 24, 1975. Rehearing Denied October 28, 1975.

Interlocutory Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; Charles M. Phillips, Jr., Judge.

Charlie Luckie, Jr., of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison Kelly, Tampa, for appellant.

Sondra Goldenfarb, of Donahey Furnell, Clearwater, for appellee.


The court below has judiciously unraveled this complex post-dissolution proceeding. However, the determination of the amount of appellant's alimony obligation for the 1974-75 accounting period appears to have been based upon some erroneous computations. In order to determine the amount of alimony payments required by the property settlement formula, the court projected appellant's income for the first one-third of the accounting period. In making these calculations it now appears that the court should have used $3,114.78 in lieu of $7,114.78 for cash draws and $680 in lieu of $2,040 for the auto lease payments. Had the court used these figures, appellant's alimony obligation for the 1974-75 accounting period would have been $314.34 per month rather than $559.78 per month. The order is hereby amended to reflect this change, and the arrearage is reduced to that extent.

The order is affirmed as amended.

HOBSON, Acting C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.


Summaries of

Brane v. Brane

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 28, 1975
319 So. 2d 620 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)
Case details for

Brane v. Brane

Case Details

Full title:EARL P. BRANE, APPELLANT, v. RITA BRANE, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 28, 1975

Citations

319 So. 2d 620 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

Citing Cases

Mack v. State

At most the officers had been met with "evasive" actions, but such conduct does not ipso facto indicate…