Case ID: so2d_509/html/1177-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ANSTEAD, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victoria COTES, Appellant, v. Jaime COTES, Appellee.
    No. 4-86-2083.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 24, 1987.
    Rehearing Denied July 21, 1987.
    Julie Pressly and Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Klein & Beranek, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    William Rodriguez, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting.

This is a difficult case because the parties are of modest means and it appears both will have a difficult time sustaining themselves in the future. However, because I believe the record reflects that the husband has a superior earning capacity, I believe it was error for the trial court to deny the wife permanent alimony, modest in amount, or, alternatively, to deny the wife lump sum alimony in the form of the husband’s interest in the marital home. In particular, an award of the marital home as lump sum alimony would permit the wife to sustain herself on her limited income, and leave the husband in a position almost identical to that in which he is now considering the lump sum of cash awarded to the wife.