Case ID: so2d_82/html/0876-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. THOMA,S, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sam R. MARKS, Appellant, v. Nadine M. MARKS, Appellee.
    Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.
    Oct. 21, 1955.
    Francis P. Conroy, Jacksonville, and Robert H, Anderson, Miami, for appellant.
    Frederick H. Kent, W. Sperry Lee and Adair, Kent & Ashby, Jacksonville, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DREW, C. J., and HOBSON, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., concur.

THOMAS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

TERRELL, J., dissents.

THOMA,S, Justice

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I think the decree so far as it deals with divorce should be affirmed, but that the decree so far as it allots alimony in á lump sum should be revised to provide that the total amount should be paid regardless of appellee’s death or remarriage.