Piersall v. Piersall

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Latimer

Affirming.

On the former appeal of this case the judgment was reversed principally because the allowance for alimony as made contravened KRS 403.060 in that it divested the husband of fee simple title to real estate. For opinion in that case see Piersall v. Piersall, 302 Ky. 486, 194 S. W. 2d 627, 629. The opinion therein ■directed the chancellor to “determine what sum, if any, is due Mrs. Piersall as lump sum alimony as of the time the original judgment was entered, and he will further ■determine what sum should be paid by the husband monthly for the…