Mayo v. Mayo, 619 So. 2d 513

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises three points, all of which have merit. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction to proceed in accordance herewith.

The trial court abused its discretion in the total award of alimony and child support. See Todesco v. Todesco, 583 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Further, it erred in failing to set a date for termination of rehabilitative alimony. See Roth v. Roth, 615 So.2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So.2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Zilbert v. Zilbert, 287 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Finally, the-trial court erred in awarding an attorney’s fee without any evidence in support thereof. See Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Mayo v. Mayo

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Jun 16, 1993

Citations: 619 So. 2d 513; 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6486; 1993 WL 208060; No. 92-1707

Docket Number: No. 92-1707

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.