An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .The suggestion to use guidelines for the determination of an alimony award is new in Florida. Judge Farmer of the Fourth District Court of Appeal was the first appellate judge to approach the subject in Bacon. v. Bacon, 819 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), in June 2002. In a concurring opinion, Judge Farmer expressed his view that "broad discretion in the award of alimony is no longer justifiable and should be discarded in favor of guidelines, if not an outright rule." (1) Judge Farmer recognized that under Canakaris (2) there has been a policy of discretion with respect to alimony; however, he noted that policy is under challenge in the literature. He believed alimony entitlements should be standardized because the outcomes would be more predictable, thus encouraging settlement and decreasing litigation. (3) Two months later, Judge Polen, also of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, referred to Judge Farmer's concurrence when Judge Polen stated in Landow v. Landow, 824 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), that broad discretion may not be the best policy and statutory guidelines should be established. These scant references in Florida case law indicate that there is some judicial support for the legislature to consider alimony guidelines, similar to the child support guidelines that are now federally mandated in all states. (4) The concept of child support guidelines met with resistance when they were first mentioned, as there was concern that guidelines would replace judicial discretion. Although disputes continue over child support guidelines, few judges and attorneys would support a movement to return to the discretionary system. (5) Obviously, alimony is very different than child support in that every marriage does not mandate alimony, whereas every child requires parental financial support. However, alimony guidelines may provide a more specific and uniform way to establish support than the current system. When there is no clear way to predict what an alimony award will be, parties are less likely to settle this issue as attorneys cannot advise their clients with any certainty. The current Florida standard is based on the need of the requesting spouse and the ability to meet that need by the paying spouse. The problem with the "need" standard is that it is difficult to define the standard of living upon which such need is based. At what length of marriage should standard of living be applied? Should generous payor spouses be penalized in a divorce with a high alimony payment to meet the standard of living, when parsimonious spouses are rewarded? Should public policy define a "middle class" standard when the payor spouse is able? On a necessities standard? At what point do divorce laws cause people not to marry--is this good public policy? All these questions are raised under the current Florida alimony rationale. It causes us to look at alimony guidelines as perhaps a possible improvement to the current general statutory factors application to alimony decisions. If alimony is to be judicially determined in "just proportions where appropriate,"' then this judicial discretion can understandably lead to widely disparate results. An overview of Florida alimony awards, based on the seven statutory factors delineated in F.S. [section] 61.08, (7) are attached as Exhibits A and B. Exhibit A lists cases dealing with permanent alimony. Exhibit B lists cases dealing with rehabilitative alimony. There is little pattern or predictability of alimony awards, even though each case is based on the same statutorily mandated analysis. A review of the attached case law summaries shows that, in permanent alimony cases, approximately one third of the cases were remanded to the trial court for lack of findings; one third were remanded to alter amount or duration; and one third were remanded for other reasons. Of those remanded for amount or duration, seven of the cases were remanded because the amount of alimony was too much, approaching or over 50 percent of the husband's income. (8) Two cases were remanded for an award of alimony that was too low (9) (Lowman--20 percent is too little; Bacon--13.5 percent is not enough). "Bridge-the-gap" alimony does not lend itself to alimony guidelines. This sub-type of lump sum alimony (10) is meant to meet a specific, short-term need. Rehabilitative alimony is sometimes referred to as "bridge-the-gap" alimony, even though the two types of alimony are very different; most notably, rehabilitative alimony requires a valid rehabilitative plan and can be of longer duration." As bridge-the-gap alimony is meant for a very specific, short-term need, it does not seem appropriate for an alimony guideline approach. The American Law Institute suggests a different policy: that is, for compensatory payments. This is a payment to compensate the receiving spouse for loss of earning ability caused by the marriage. (12) The American Law Institute proposes five bases for compensatory payments, including the loss in living standard experienced at dissolution by the spouse who has less wealth; an earning-capacity loss incurred during the marriage from one spouse's disproportionate share of the care of children or from the care provided to a sick, elderly, or disabled third party; the loss incurred when the marriage is dissolved before a spouse realizes a fair return from his or her investment in the other spouse's earning capacity; and an unfairly disproportionate disparity between the spouses in their abilities to recover their premarital standard of living after the dissolution of a short marriage. (13) Note that these factors are not as income-driven as guidelines; rather, they are factors that must be judicially determined. The Model Provisions Adopting Chapter 5 of the American Law Institute's Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution provides suggested language that could be adopted by state legislatures. (14) The suggested formulas for some factors are income-based. However, the suggested formulas for other factors add other variables such as the family's living expenses during the period of education or training and the amount of debt that remains from the period of education or training and the amount necessary for the spouses to recover the premarital standard of living for factor. (15) The question is: Are they more fair than the current Florida factors, and would they provide more predictable results? A turn to income-based guidelines for alimony would be a sharp departure from the currently existing philosophy with respect to alimony by Florida courts, which currently emphasizes the standard of living in fashioning alimony awards. For example, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Vick v. Vick, 675 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), discusses percentage of income rather than standard of living, noting that the appellate court cannot determine whether the trial court's imposition of monthly support obligations constitutes abuse of discretion merely by referring to the percentage of the husband's net monthly income. Rather, the appellate court must review the trial court's overall division of assets and award of support to determine the appropriateness of the award. Conversely, the court in Laz v. Laz, 727 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), considered the percentage of income when it reversed the alimony awarded by the trial court. In Laz, Judge Quince opined that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to award the wife of a 35-year marriage less than one third of the income available to the parties. In Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court struggled with this issue when the husband's net income was high (over $428,750 per year) but the parties had a parsimonious standard of living. The Second District Court of Appeal tried to accommodate this disparity by developing the concept of a "savings alimony" award to the wife. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, reaffirming the concept that alimony was to provide support only for the needs of the requesting party. Next month, in the second part of this article, there will be an examination of the steps that some of the other states are taking to deal with the alimony issue and a discussion as to how Florida might be able to address the problems associated with awarding alimony.
Permanent Alimony Award Upheld after 5/1/1997
Case Length Wife's Wife's
of Age Income
Marriage
Lewis v. Lewis
807 So. 2d 777
(la. 1st DCA
2002)
Morgan v.
Morgan
813 So. 2d 139
(Fla. 1st DCA
2002)
Grimes v. approx. 49
Grimes 12
770 So. 2d 293 years
(Fla. 1st DCA
2000)
Burrill v. 6 years 40 $6-7 per
Burrill hour;
701 So. 2d 354 (potential
(Fla. 1st DCA to earn
1997) $18-20,000
per year)
Merkin v.
Merkin 32 years 53 $914 per
804 So. 2d 595 month
(Fla. 2d DCA
2002)
Blanchard v. over 30
Blanchard years
793 So. 2d 989
(Fla. 2d DCA
2001)
Cochran v.
Cochran
819 So 2d 863
(Fla. 3d DCA
Martinez v. 12 years 40 $12,564
Martinez per year
761 So. 2d 433 imputed
(Fla. 1st DCA
2002)
Garces v. 24 years 54 $40,484
Garces per year;
704 So. 2d 1106 $5,000 from
(Fla. 3d DCA part-time
1998) job
Bronson 23 years
v. Bronson
793 So. 2d 1109
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Baker v. Baker 18 years early 40s $24,000
763 So. 2d 493 per year
(Fla. 4th DCA
2000)
Moorehead v. 17 years 43 $1000 net
Moorehead per month
745 So. 2d 549 imputed
(Fla. 4th DCA by trial
1999) court
Nelson v. 12 years $12,000 per
Nelson year
721 So. 2d 388
(Fla. 4th DCA
1998)
McHugh v. less than 0
McHugh 14 years
702 So. 2d 639
(Fla. 4th DCA
1997)
Cerra v. Cerra 24 years late 40s $5,000
820 So. 2d 398 during
(Fla. 5th DCA marriage;
2002) $20,000
after
separation
Reeves v. 4 years 32 $10,000
Reeves
821 So. 2d 333
(Fla. 5th DCA
2002)
Brown v. approx. $2,000
Brown 19 years imputed
784 So. 2d 464
(Fla. 5th DCA
2001)
Johnson v. 5 years $3,000
Johnson per
779 So. 2d 620 month
(Fla. 5th DCA from
2001) annuity
Lapham v. approx. 8 61 less
Lapham years than
778 So. 2d 487 $16,000
(Fla. 5th DCA per year
2001)
Thomas v. 14 $1760
Thomas years per
776 So. 2d 283 month
(Fla. 5th DCA
1998)
Escudero v. 9 years 68 $998 per
Escudero month
739 So. 2d 688
(Fla. 5th DCA
1999)
Pollock v. 6 years $500-$1200
Pollock per month
722 So. 2d 283
(Fla. 5th DCA
1998)
Case Husband's Alimony
Income Awarded
Lewis v. Lewis
807 So. 2d 777
(Fla. 1st DCA
2002)
Morgan v. Lump sum
Morgan of
813 So. 2d 139 $279,000,
(Fla. 1st DCA payable
2002) in monthly
installments
of $1,500/mo.
Grimes v.
Grimes
770 So. 2d 293
(Fla. 1st DCA
2000)
Burrill v. $60-70,000 Lump sum
Burrill per year of $38,350
701 So. 2d 354 payable at
(Fla. 1st DCA $1,000/mo.
1997) for Equit.
Dist.
Merkin v.
Merkin $11,467-$12,234/mo. $4,000/
804 So. 2d 595 mo. perm.
(Fla. 2d DCA alimony
2002)
Blanchard v. 0 for last
Blanchard 1.5 years
793 So. 2d 989 (during
(Fla. 2d DCA pursuit of
2001) photography
career)
Cochran v.
Cochran
819 So 2d 863
(Fla. 3d DCA
Martinez v. $31,096 net per
Martinez month
761 So. 2d 433
(Fla. 1st DCA
2002)
Garces v. $56,000 per $1,000/
Garces year mo. perm.
704 So. 2d 1106 alimony
(Fla. 3d DCA
1998)
Bronson $42,000, $1,000/
v. Bronson imputed; mo. perm.
793 So. 2d 1109 approx. $200 alimony
(Fla. 4th DCA per week
2001) actual income
Baker v. Baker over $88,000
763 So. 2d 493 per year
(Fla. 4th DCA
2000)
Moorehead v. $500/bi-weekly
Moorehead perm. alimony
745 So. 2d 549
(Fla. 4th DCA
1999)
Nelson v. $72,000 per
Nelson year
721 So. 2d 388
(Fla. 4th DCA
1998)
McHugh v. $17,340 net $2,500/ mo. 5
McHugh per mo. yrs. Rehab.
702 So. 2d 639 alimony;
(Fla. 4th DCA $1,500/ mo.
1997) Perm.
alimony
Cerra v. Cerra $150,000 $3,000/ mo.
820 So. 2d 398 perm.
(Fla. 5th DCA alimony
2002)
Reeves v. over $50,000
Reeves
821 So. 2d 333
(Fla. 5th DCA
2002)
Brown v. $50,000
Brown lease
784 So. 2d 464 income per
(Fla. 5th DCA year
2001)
Johnson v. $800 per
Johnson month from
779 So. 2d 620 social
(Fla. 5th DCA security
2001) disability
payments
Lapham v. approx. $375/mo.
Lapham $39,000 perm.
778 So. 2d 487 alimony
(Fla. 5th DCA
2001)
Thomas v. $7000 per $600/mo.
Thomas month perm
776 So. 2d 283 alimony
(Fla. 5th DCA
1998)
Escudero v. $1,721 per $350/mo.
Escudero month perm.
739 So. 2d 688 alimony
(Fla. 5th DCA
1999)
Pollock v. $600/mo.
Pollock Rehab.
722 So. 2d 283 alimony
(Fla. 5th DCA converted to
1998) $794 per
month perm.
alimony
Case Court action
Lewis v. Lewis Alimony award upheld when trial
807 So. 2d 777 court made numerous findings related
(Fla. 1st DCA to the former wife's entitlement
2002) to alimony even though it did not
make a specific finding as to the
standard of living established during the
marriage
Morgan v. Alimony in the amount of $279,000,
Morgan payable in monthly installments for
813 So. 2d 139 a term of 15 years should not have
(Fla. 1st DCA been classified as "lump sum" alimony,
2002) but rather should have been
classified as permanent alimony
Grimes v. Reversed denial of permanent alimony;
Grimes that husband chose to marry
770 So. 2d 293 a woman 16 years older than himself
(Fla. 1st DCA not an appropriate basis on
2000) which to deny permanent alimony
Burrill v. Reversed denial of permanent alimony
Burrill but upheld denial of rehabilitative
701 So. 2d 354 alimony
(Fla. 1st DCA
1997)
Merkin v.
Merkin Alimony award upheld where
804 So. 2d 595 husband had ability to pay and
(Fla. 2d DCA wife demonstrated need
2002)
Blanchard v. Reversed denial of nominal award
Blanchard of permanent alimony to reserve
793 So. 2d 989 jurisdiction to potentially award
(Fla. 2d DCA wife greater amount of alimony in
2001) future; reversed award of
bridge-the-gap alimony to husband
Cochran v. Alimony award upheld, finding the
Cochran husband was voluntary underemployed
819 So 2d 863 and properly imputed
(Fla. 3d DCA income to him based on his earning
capacity
Martinez v. Affirmed award of permanent
Martinez alimoney
761 So. 2d 433
(Fla. 1st DCA
2002)
Garces v. Affirmed permanent alimony
Garces and requirement that husband
704 So. 2d 1106 cover wife's future medical, psychiatric,
(Fla. 3d DCA and counseling expenses
1998) required as a result of domestic
abuse during marriage
Bronson Affirmed award of permanent
v. Bronson alimony to wife in light of
793 So. 2d 1109 husband's imputed income;
(Fla. 4th DCA record supported trial court's
2001) finding that husband caused his
own termination of employment
Baker v. Baker Affirmed award of permanent
763 So. 2d 493 alimoney
(Fla. 4th DCA
2000)
Moorehead v. Affirmed award of permanent
Moorehead alimony
745 So. 2d 549
(Fla. 4th DCA
1999)
Nelson v. Affirmed award of permanent
Nelson alimony
721 So. 2d 388
(Fla. 4th DCA
1998)
McHugh v. Affirmed awards of permanent and
McHugh rehabilitative alimony
702 So. 2d 639
(Fla. 4th DCA
1997)
Cerra v. Cerra Alimony award upheld; long-term
820 So. 2d 398 marriage, therefore a
(Fla. 5th DCA rebuttable presumption of
2002) entitlement to permanent
alimony; disparate earning
capacity is significant factor
Reeves v. Failing to award permanent alimony
Reeves was abuse of discretion; rebuttable
821 So. 2d 333 presumption against permanent
(Fla. 5th DCA alimony for short term
2002) marriage, however it can be
awarded when circumstances occur
during marriage precluding a
spouse from earning as much as he
or she did prior to marriage.
Brown v. Remanded issue of alimony for
Brown trial court to reconsider without
784 So. 2d 464 imputing income to wife; no
(Fla. 5th DCA basis for imputation without
2001) evidence to show what she could
earn in local economy
Johnson v. Reversed denial of alimony to
Johnson husband; waiver of interest in
779 So. 2d 620 wife's property in prenuptial
(Fla. 5th DCA agreement did not preclude alimony
2001) request; remanded for trial
court to consider husband's claim
for alimony based on needs and
ability standard
Lapham v. Affirmed award of permanent
Lapham alimony
778 So. 2d 487
(Fla. 5th DCA
2001)
Thomas v. Affirmed award of permanent
Thomas alimony; 14 years in upper
776 So. 2d 283 portion of gray area of marriages
(Fla. 5th DCA for alimony purposes
1998)
Escudero v. Affirmed award of permanent
Escudero alimony
739 So. 2d 688
(Fla. 5th DCA
1999)
Pollock v. Affirmed modification of rehabilitative
Pollock alimony to permanent
722 So. 2d 283 alimony in a gray area marriage'
(Fla. 5th DCA as general rule that payee
1998) spouse should be afforded
lifestyle commensurate to
marriage does not necessarily
apply
Case Other Factors:
Including Standard of Living,
Agreements Between Parties
and Children
Lewis v. Lewis
807 So. 2d 777
(Fla. 1st DCA
2002)
Morgan v. The alimony was for support, not a
Morgan division of assets; record did not
813 So. 2d 139 indicate special circumstances that
(Fla. 1st DCA warranted lump sum rather than
2002) permanent alimony
Grimes v. Wife had serious health problems,
Grimes including cancer of the
770 So. 2d 293 eye and serious depression
(Fla. 1st DCA
2000)
Burrill v. Agreement that wife would stay
Burrill home with children; husband supported
701 So. 2d 354 wife pursuing an education
(Fla. 1st DCA
1997)
Merkin v.
Merkin
804 So. 2d 595
(Fla. 2d DCA
2002)
Blanchard v. Husband earned significantly
Blanchard more income than wife throughout
793 So. 2d 989 most of marriage
(Fla. 2d DCA
2001)
Cochran v.
Cochran
819 So 2d 863
(Fla. 3d DCA
Martinez v. Wife is college graduate but a
Martinez homemaker during marriage; 2
761 So. 2d 433 minor children
(Fla. 1st DCA
2002)
Garces v. Award was based on assumption
Garces that wife would continue full-time
704 So. 2d 1106 employment, but was not
(Fla. 3d DCA required to continue part-time
1998) job
Bronson
v. Bronson
793 So. 2d 1109
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Baker v. Baker Two minor children; husband
763 So. 2d 493 never complained about her reduced
(Fla. 4th DCA work schedule to take care
2000) of children
Moorehead v. Wife only held unskilled jobs
Moorehead earning close to min.;
745 So. 2d 549 wife had below average intelligence
(Fla. 4th DCA
1999)
Nelson v. Court noted that disparate
Nelson earning capacity becomes
721 So. 2d 388 significant factor in "gray area"
(Fla. 4th DCA marriages
1998)
McHugh v. Wife suffered from depression;
McHugh 2 minor children
702 So. 2d 639
(Fla. 4th DCA
1997)
Cerra v. Cerra Wife started making $20,000
820 So. 2d 398 after dissolution began; income
(Fla. 5th DCA should not be imputed to her.
2002) There is no requirement that a
person be employed making the
highest wages available in her field
Reeves v. Wife made $27,000 prior to
Reeves marriage, but was now only capable
821 So. 2d 333 of making $10,000 as she
(Fla. 5th DCA and husband agreed during
2002) marriage she would discontinue
her career as a teacher for the
parties' handicapped child.
Brown v.
Brown
784 So. 2d 464
(Fla. 5th DCA
2001)
Johnson v.
Johnson
779 So. 2d 620
(Fla. 5th DCA
2001)
Lapham v. Parties separated several years
Lapham earlier but continued to interact
778 So. 2d 487 with each other as a couple;
(Fla. 5th DCA wife had health insurance
2001) expense
Thomas v. One minor child
Thomas
776 So. 2d 283
(Fla. 5th DCA
1998)
Escudero v. Wife over-contributed to living
Escudero expenses; Abusive relationship--wife
739 So. 2d 688 had to seek psych. Counseling
(Fla. 5th DCA and help for depression
1999)
Pollock v. Wife suffered from mental
Pollock health problems; husband had
722 So. 2d 283 cash flow problem
(Fla. 5th DCA
1998)
Permanent Alimony Award Reversed after 5/1/1997
Case Length Wife's Wife's
of Age Income
Marriage
Mallard v. "long term"
Mallard
771 So. 2d 1138
(Fla. 2000)
Todd v. Todd 19 years $18,200
734 So. 2d 537 per year
(Fla. 1st DCA
1999)
O'Connor v. Over 20 45 Dental
O'Connor years assistant;
782 So. 2d 502 (most
(Fla. 2d DCA income
2001) from cash
assets)
Tarkow v. 26 years 48 $1000 per
Tarkow month
805 So. 2d 502 imputed
(Fla. 2d DCA
2001)
Lowman v. 24 years $20,000
Lowman per
724 So. 2d 648 year
(Fla. 2d DCA
1999)
Ruiz v. Ruiz
821 So. 2d 1112
(Fla. 3d DCA
2002)
Austin v. 16 years ability to
Austin earn
785 So. 2d 528 $1,360
(Fla. 3d DCA per
2001) month
Rashotsky v. 32 years
Rashotsky
782 So. 2d 542
(Fla. 3d DCA
2001)
Gallinar u. 2 years, 8 38 0
Gallinar months
763 So. 2d 447
(Fla. 3d DCA
2000)
Ballesteros v. 28 years $1,378
Ballesteros,
819 So. 2d 902
(Fla. 4th DCA
2002)
Peterson v.
Peterson,
818 So. 2d 683
(Fla 4th DCA
2002)
Bacon v. Bacon, 27 years None
819 So. 2d 950
(Flu. 4th DCA
2002)
Vorcheimer approx. 12 0
v. Vorcheimer, years
780 So. 2d 1018
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Weiser v. 19 years 0
Weiser,
782 So. 2d 986
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Shrove v. 18 years 0
Shrove
724 So. 2d 679
(Fla. 4th DCA
1999)
Segall v. 8 years 43 $35,000
Segall
708 So. 2d 679 per
(Fla. 4th DCA year
1998)
Ordini v. 12 years 33 $1,200
Ordini per
701 So. 2d 663 month
(Fla. 4th DCA imputed
1997)
Vitalis v. 20 years 40 $1,038
Vitalis
799 So. 2d 1127 per
(Fla. 5th DCA month
2001)
Kreisler v. 20 years 0
Kreisler,
752 So. 2d 1288
(Fla. 5th DCA
2000)
Calderon v. 11 years 0
Calderon
730 So. 2d 400
(Fla. 5th DCA
2000)
Case Husband's Alimony
Income Awarded
Mallard v. over $7,375/mo.
Mallard $428,750 perm.
771 So. 2d 1138 per year alimony with
(Fla. 2000) $3,125 for
savings
Todd v. Todd $50,000 per $750/mo.
734 So. 2d 537 year Perm.
(Fla. 1st DCA alimony
1999)
O'Connor v. Maintained $5,500/mo.
O'Connor own dental Perm.
782 So. 2d 502 practice alimony
(Fla. 2d DCA throughout
2001) most of
marriage
Tarkow v. $201,000 per $9,000/mo.
Tarkow year Perm.
805 So. 2d 502 alimony
(Fla. 2d DCA
2001)
Lowman v. $80,000 $1,200/mo.
Lowman per year Perm.
724 So. 2d 648 alimony
(Fla. 2d DCA
1999)
Ruiz v. Ruiz $600/wk.
821 So. 2d 1112 Perm.
(Fla. 3d DCA alimony
2002)
Austin v. $192,000 per $6,140/mo.
Austin year Perm.
785 So. 2d 528 alimony
(Fla. 3d DCA
2001)
Rashotsky v. $10,500 net $6,000/mo.
Rashotsky per car. plus Perm.
782 So. 2d 542 end of year alimony
(Fla. 3d DCA bonus plus first
2001) $12,984 of
any bonus
Gallinar v. $250/wk.
Gallinar Perm.
763 So. 2d 447 alimony
(Fla. 3d DCA
2000)
Ballesteros v. $2,308 $600/mo.
Ballesteros, perm.
819 So. 2d 902 alimony
(Fla. 4th DCA
2002)
Peterson v.
Peterson,
818 So. 2d 683
(Fla 4th DCA
2002)
Bacon v. Bacon, $288,000 $3,275/mo.
819 So. 2d 950 perm
(Flu. 4th DCA alimony
2002)
Vorcheimer $5830 net per $750/mo.
v. Vorcheimer, month (including perm.
780 So. 2d 1018 imputed alimony
(Fla. 4th DCA support from
2001) his father
Weiser v. $12,000 net per $4,000/mo.
Weiser, month perm.
782 So. 2d 986 alimony
(Fla. 4th DCA until youngest
2001) child 18;
then $2,500/
mo.
Shrove v. $10,191.33 $2,000/mo.
Shrove per month perm.
724 So. 2d 679 alimony
(Fla. 4th DCA
1999)
Segall v. $50,000-$100,000 $692/mo.
Segall per year month perm.
708 So. 2d 679 alimony
(Fla. 4th DCA
1998)
Ordini v. $3,000 per $1,000/mo.
Ordini month imputed perm.
701 So. 2d 663 alimony
(Fla. 4th DCA
1997)
Vitalis v. $6846 per $1,200/mo.
Vitalis month perm.
799 So. 2d 1127 alimony;
(Fla. 5th DCA $300/mo.
2001) rehab.
alimony
Kreisler v. ???-medical $2,400/mo.
Kreisler, software perm.
752 So. 2d 1288 salesman alimony
(Fla. 5th DCA
2000)
Calderon v. $2760 net $150/mo.
Calderon per month perm.
730 So. 2d 400 alimony;
(Fla. 5th DCA $150/mo.
2000) rehab.
alimony
during wife's
pregnancy
Case Court action
Mallard v. Reversed alimony award holding
Mallard alimony cannot include a
771 So. 2d 1138 savings component, its purpose
(Fla. 2000) is to provide the needs and
necessities of life
Todd v. Todd Reversed permanent alimony
734 So. 2d 537 award and remanded to re-address
(Fla. 1st DCA amount; improper to use
1999) formula to determine amount of
permanent alimony
O'Connor v. Reversed award of permanent
O'Connor alimony; error to include inheritance
782 So. 2d 502 and investment in retirement
(Fla. 2d DCA account as income sources
2001) for wife
Tarkow v. Reversed permanent alimony
Tarkow award and directed trial court on
805 So. 2d 502 remand to reduce award to $8000/
(Fla. 2d DCA mo.
2001)
Lowman v. Reversed award of permanent
Lowman alimony and remanded for
724 So. 2d 648 consideration of larger amount
(Fla. 2d DCA
1999)
Ruiz v. Ruiz Alimony was reversed because
821 So. 2d 1112 the judgment did not include
(Fla. 3d DCA findings of fact on the husband's
2002) ability to pay or the wife's
financial resources
Austin v. Reversed amount of permanent
Austin alimony award and remanded for
785 So. 2d 528 redetermination of amount;
(Fla. 3d DCA amount awarded excessive
2001)
Rashotsky v. Reversed permanent alimony
Rashotsky award; evidence did not support
782 So. 2d 542 award when under the order,
(Fla. 3d DCA husband would not be able to live
2001) within his own stated needs
Gallinar v. Reversed the amount of permanent
Gallinar alimony and remanded for
763 So. 2d 447 reduction in the award to ensure
(Fla. 3d DCA the husband's economic survival
2000)
Ballesteros v. The award of permanent alimony
Ballesteros, for the wife was an abuse of discretion
819 So. 2d 902 when the alimony combined
(Fla. 4th DCA with child support and health
2002) insurance for minor child left
husband unable to support himself
Peterson v. Alimony award reversed and
Peterson, remanded for fining regarding the
818 So. 2d 683 standard of living during the
(Fla 4th DCA marriage; without the finding, the
2002) court cannot review the reasonableness'
of the award
Bacon v. Bacon, Amount of alimony was an error
819 So. 2d 950 when the court failed to consider all
(Flu. 4th DCA of the wife's needs in its award,
2002) especially considering the award
was only approximately 13.5% of
the husband's income
Vorcheimer Remanded award of permanent
v. Vorcheimer, alimony for trial court to reconsider
780 So. 2d 1018 amount of award after recalculating
(Fla. 4th DCA husband's income; error to impute
2001) the $1500 additional income husband
was receiving from his father absent
evidence that the payment would
continue in the future
Weiser v. Affirmed award of permanent
Weiser, alimony, but reversed automatic
782 So. 2d 986 reduction portion of final judgment;
(Fla. 4th DCA $2,000 per month gift could he
2001) included in calculation of income for
alimony
Shrove v. Reversed permanent alimony;
Shrove remanded for further findings concerning
724 So. 2d 679 amount of income; bonus
(Fla. 4th DCA income properly included in determining
1999) income for alimony purposes
Segall v. Reversed permanent alimony;
Segall remanded for sufficient findings
708 So. 2d 679 of fact to enable court to determine
(Fla. 4th DCA appropriateness of permanent
1998) alimony award or consider
rehabilitative or "bridge-the-gap"
alimony
Ordini v. Affirmed permanent aspect of
Ordini alimony award; remanded to
701 So. 2d 663 reconsider amount in light of
(Fla. 4th DCA conclusion that trial court erred in
1997) not considering financial support
of husband's Parents
Vitalis v. Reversed awards of permanent and
Vitalis rehabilitative alimony; remanded
799 So. 2d 1127 for entry of findings of fact noting
(Fla. 5th DCA that wife's rehab. plan was sufficient,
2001) but she may be entitled to
permanent alimony
Kreisler v. Reversed amount of permanent
Kreisler, alimony award and remanded for
752 So. 2d 1288 consideration of appropriate
(Fla. 5th DCA amount after imputing income to
2000) wife of at least minimum wage
Calderon v. Reversed permanent alimony and
Calderon other financial components of
730 So. 2d 400 judgment; remanded for determination
(Fla. 5th DCA of support amounts which
2000) husband can afford to pay and
which are supported by record
evidence
Case Other Factors
Mallard v. Court noted the accumulation of
Mallard marital assets due to frugality of
771 So. 2d 1138 parties was taken into consideration
(Fla. 2000) in equitable distribution
Todd v. Todd Court did not consider marital
734 So. 2d 537 assets and liabilities distributed
(Fla. 1st DCA to each party
1999)
O'Connor v. Alimony warded represented over
O'Connor 50% of husband's net monthly
782 So. 2d 502 income; remanded for court to make
(Fla. 2d DCA findings as to the wife's actual
2001) needs, income from all sources and
ability to contribute to her own
support
Tarkow v. Wife's financial affidavit had
Tarkow overinflated items
805 So. 2d 502
(Fla. 2d DCA
2001)
Lowman v. Wife had history of health problems;
Lowman 1 minor child; parties split $210,000
724 So. 2d 648 in marital assets
(Fla. 2d DCA
1999)
Ruiz v. Ruiz Judgments incorporating consideration
821 So. 2d 1112 of future events in setting
(Fla. 3d DCA support amounts are usually improper
2002) because of the lack of evidentiary
basis for determining those
future events
Austin v. Trial court entered rotating custody
Austin schedule
785 So. 2d 528
(Fla. 3d DCA
2001)
Rashotsky v. Trial court abused its discretion in
Rashotsky ordering alimony nontaxable/
782 So. 2d 542 nondeductable when decision caused
(Fla. 3d DCA an additional $13,000 tax liability
2001)
Gallinar v. Noted wife would probably not be
Gallinar able to maintain employment due to
763 So. 2d 447 depression; one child
(Fla. 3d DCA
2000)
Ballesteros v.
Ballesteros,
819 So. 2d 902
(Fla. 4th DCA
2002)
Peterson v. Permanent alimony is used to provide
Peterson, the needs of the spouse as established
818 So. 2d 683 during the marriage, therefore,
(Fla 4th DCA findings are required
2002)
Bacon v. Bacon, Trial court erred in arbitrarily making
819 So. 2d 950 deductions from wife's expenses
(Flu. 4th DCA
2002)
Vorcheimer Three minor children
v. Vorcheimer,
780 So. 2d 1018
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Weiser v. 2 minor children; parties agreed that
Weiser, wife would be stay-at-home mother
782 So. 2d 986 during children's minority
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Shrove v. Wife stayed at home with children
Shrove during most of marriage;
724 So. 2d 679 wife had several health problems
(Fla. 4th DCA
1999)
Segall v. 2 minor children; no showing wife
Segall was permanently without means of
708 So. 2d 679 self-support as result of anything
(Fla. 4th DCA that transpired during the marriage
1998)
Ordini v. Parties supported by gifts from
Ordini parents during marriage; agreement
701 So. 2d 663 that wife would not work;
(Fla. 4th DCA husband's mother testified that
1997) she would continue to meet her
son's needs 2 minor children
Vitalis v. 2 minor children; final judgement
Vitalis tracked statute without
799 So. 2d 1127 specific factual support for most
(Fla. 5th DCA of the mandated factors
2001)
Kreisler v. 2 children had almost reached
Kreisler, majority; wife had college degree and
752 So. 2d 1288 had performed odd jobs and accounting
(Fla. 5th DCA work during marriage
2000)
Calderon v. 3 minor children and 1 expected child;
Calderon support awards left husband with
730 So. 2d 400 $211 per month on which to live
(Fla. 5th DCA
2000)
Permanent Alimony Denial Cases after 5/1/1997
Case Length Wife's Wife's
of Age Income
Marriage
Landow v. 7 years 50
Landow
824 So. 2d 278
(Fla. 4th DCA
2002)
Krafchuk v. 12 years Husband Husband
Krafchuk -44 disabled
804 So. 2d 376 $1176 per
(Fla. 4th DCA month
2001) Soc. Sec.
Adinolfe v. 9 years Probably
Adinolfe 0
718 So. 2d 369
(Fla. 4th DCA
1998)
Langevin v. 11 years approx. significant
Langevin same age salary
698 So. 2d 601 as husband
(Fla. 4th DCA
1997)
Weller v. 9 years 46 0 with
Weller potential
709 So. 2d 646 to earn
(Fla. 5th DCA $20,000
1998) per year
$38,000
Stewart v. 13 years 34 $18,000;
Stewert potential
696 So. 2d 1237 to earn
(Fla. 5th DCA $3000 per
1997) month
Case Husband's Alimony
Income Awarded
Landow v.
Landow
824 So. 2d 278
(Fla. 4th DCA
2002)
Krafchuk v. Wife $5010
Krafchuk
804 So. 2d 376
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Adinolfe v.
Adinolfe
718 So. 2d 369
(Fla. 4th DCA
1998)
Langevin v. higher than
Langevin wife's
698 So. 2d 601
(Fla. 4th DCA
1997)
Weller v. gross per year
Weller Reversed
709 So. 2d 646
(Fla. 5th DCA
1998)
Stewart v. over $104,000
Stewert per year
696 So. 2d 1237
(Fla. 5th DCA
1997)
Case Court Action
Landow v. Affirmed denial of permanent
Landow alimony after short term marriage
824 So. 2d 278 when wife left the marriage with
(Fla. 4th DCA substantial assets
2002)
Krafchuk v. Affirmed denial of permanent
Krafchuk alimony to husband who moved in
804 So. 2d 376 with parents after car accident who
(Fla. 4th DCA provided him with a comfortable
2001) lifestyle that could not be sustained
with resources of wife
Adinolfe v. Affirmed denial of permanent
Adinolfe alimony; 9 years not such a short
718 So. 2d 369 period as to deny permanent
(Fla. 4th DCA alimony as a matter of law
1998)
Langevin v. Affirmed denial of permanent
Langevin alimony; trial court found wife had
698 So. 2d 601 sufficient financial resources to be
(Fla. 4th DCA self-supporting without assistance
1997) from husband
Weller v. Award of permanent alimony
Weller
709 So. 2d 646
(Fla. 5th DCA
1998)
Stewart v. Reversed permanent alimony;
Stewert determination that permanent
696 So. 2d 1237 alimony should be awarded
(Fla. 5th DCA implies incapability of self-support;
1997) requisite incapacity not
found here
Case Other Factors
Landow v. Wife's business did not suffer as a
Landow result of marriage.
824 So. 2d 278
(Fla. 4th DCA
2002)
Krafchuk v. Accident occurred 3 years into the
Krafchuk marriage
804 So. 2d 376
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Adinolfe v. Worker's comp. claim placed wife in
Adinolfe better financial position than husband;
718 So. 2d 369 trial court distributed marital assets
(Fla. 4th DCA and debts in wife's favor
1998)
Langevin v. Wife worked throughout marriage;
Langevin each party left marriage with
698 So. 2d 601 $450,000 in assets
(Fla. 4th DCA
1997)
Weller v. No children; wife fully capable of
Weller working and supporting herself
709 So. 2d 646
(Fla. 5th DCA
1998)
Stewart v. Wife had nursing degree, in good
Stewert health, and worked as a
696 So. 2d 1237 pharmaceutical rep.
(Fla. 5th DCA
1997)
Cases Reversing Award of Rehabilitative Alimony after 1/1/1998
Case Length of Wife's Wife's
Marriage Age Income
Bryan v. Bryan 11 years 46 $2,160
765 So. 2d 829
(Fla. 1st DCA
2000)
Purvis v.
Purvis
732 So. 2d 460
(Fla. 1st DCA
1999)
Walker v. 12 years None
Walker
818 So. 2d 711
(Fla. 2d DCA
2002)
Cozier v. 15 years
Cozier
819 So. 2d 834
(Fla. 2d DCA
2002)
Ingram v. 20 years 39
Ingram
750 So.2d 130
(Fla. 2d DCA
2000)
Williams v. less than 2 limited
Williams yrs. income
766 So. 2d 1127
(Fla. 2d DCA
2000)
Sierra v. approx. 6 28
Sierra years
776 So. 2d 966
(Fla. 3d DCA
2000)
Sutton v. Hart 23 months 27 $255/wk.
746 So. 2d 1175 after
(Fla. 3d DCA separation;
1999) $0 during
marriage
Young v. Hector approx. 13 $300,000
740 So. 2d 1153 years per year
(Fla. 3d DCA
1998)
Saporito v. 18 months 50
Saporito
831 So. 2d 697
(Fla. 5th DCA
2002)
Vitalis v. Vitalis Approx. 20 40 $1038
799 So. 2d 1127 years
(Fla. 5th DCA
2001)
Rivers v. Rivers 3.5 years
785 So. 2d 752
(Fla. 5th DCA
2001)
Case Husband's Alimony
Income Awarded
Bryan v. Bryan $3,350 $1,250/mo.
765 So. 2d 829 rehab.; alimony
(Fla. 1st DCA for 5
2000) years
Purvis v.
Purvis
732 So. 2d 460
(Fla. 1st DCA
1999)
Walker v. $600,000 $6,000/mo.
Walker (until last
818 So. 2d 711 child 18)
(Fla. 2d DCA
2002)
Cozier u. Cozier $30,000+
819 So. 2d 834 benefits
(Fla. 2d DCA
2002)
Ingram v. $200 /mo.
Ingram rehab. Alimony
750 So.2d 130 for
(Fla. 2d DCA max of 4 yrs.
2000)
Williams v. superior
Williams earning
766 So. 2d 1127 capacity
(Fla. 2d DCA
2000)
Sierra v. $2,443.60
Sierra
776 So. 2d 966
(Fla. 3d DCA
2000)
Sutton v. Hart $400 per month
746 So. 2d 1175 Rehab. alimony
(Fla. 3d DCA (2 years)
1999)
Young v. Hector Former $2,000/mo.
740 So. 2d 1153 husband--unemployed Rehab. alimony
(Fla. 3d DCA for 4 mos.
1998)
Saporito v. Lump sum of
Saporito $70,192.44 as
831 So. 2d 697 Rehab. alimony
(Fla. 5th DCA
2002)
Vitalis v. Vitalis $6,846 $1,200/mo.
799 So. 2d 1127 Perm. alimony;
(Fla. 5th DCA $300/mo. Rehab
2001) alimony
Rivers v. Rivers
785 So. 2d 752
(Fla. 5th DCA
2001)
Case Wife's skills Rehab
at divorce Plan
Bryan v. Bryan No
765 So. 2d 829
(Fla. 1st DCA
2000)
Purvis v.
Purvis
732 So. 2d 460
(Fla. 1st DCA
1999)
Walker v. Did not work No
Walker during marriage
818 So. 2d 711
(Fla. 2d DCA
2002)
Cozier v. waitress No
Cozier
819 So. 2d 834
(Fla. 2d DCA
2002)
Ingram v. Bachelor's degree No
Ingram in personnel;
750 So.2d 130 receptionist
(Fla. 2d DCA
2000)
Williams v. No
Williams
766 So. 2d 1127
(Fla. 2d DCA
2000)
Sierra v. Waitress; hostess Yes
Sierra completed a few
776 So. 2d 966 college courses
(Fla. 3d DCA
2000)
Sutton v. Hart 1-yr. of community Yes
746 So. 2d 1175 college; clerical
(Fla. 3d DCA
1999)
Young v. Hector former Yes
740 So. 2d 1153 husband--architect
(Fla. 3d DCA
1998)
Saporito v. foreign degree, No
Saporito not useful in the
831 So. 2d 697 United States
(Fla. 5th DCA
2002)
Vitalis v. Vitalis Medical assistant; Yes
799 So. 2d 1127 teacher's assistant;
(Fla. 5th DCA waitress
2001)
Rivers v. Rivers No
785 So. 2d 752
(Fla. 5th DCA
2001)
Case Court Action
Bryan v. Bryan 1st DCA reversed award of rehab.
765 So. 2d 829 alimony for five years to
(Fla. 1st DCA "bridge-the-gap," noting holding
2000) did not preclude an award of
short-term assistance
Purvis v. 1st DCA reversed rehab. alimony.
Purvis award as final judgment did not
732 So. 2d 460 contain findings of fact to support
(Fla. 1st DCA award; noting on remand court
1999) can consider awarding rehab.
alimony or "bridge-the-gap"
alimony
Walker v. Trial court awarded rehab.
Walker alimony. 2d DCA noted that rehab.
818 So. 2d 711 alimony is not a substitute for
(Fla. 2d DCA permanent alimony & remanded
2002) the case for findings to support
the type of alimony and amount of
award.
Cozier v. Trial court awarded rehab. Alimony
Cozier but the order did not contain
819 So. 2d 834 findings and rehab. plan; 2d
(Fla. 2d DCA DCA remanded, stating there was
2002) a clear justification in the record
for the award of rehab. alimony;
however the trial court needed
make required findings of fact
Ingram v. 2d DCA reversed 6-year rehab.
Ingram alimony award to provide wife
750 So.2d 130 means to obtain an M.B.A. (2 years
(Fla. 2d DCA to become eligible for program and
2000) 4 years in the program) when she
had not even taken the G.R.E. prep
course, finding length of rehab.
alimony excessive
Williams v. 2d DCA reversed award of marital
Williams home to wife for 4 yrs. As
766 So. 2d 1127 rehabilitative alimony without a
(Fla. 2d DCA rehab. plan; improper intermingling
2000) of asset distribution and alimony
issues
Sierra v. 3d DCA reversed rehab. award
Sierra that was to be paid while wife
776 So. 2d 966 attended school for four years to
(Fla. 3d DCA earn education degree, noting
2000) marriage did not affect wife's
ability to obtain same or similar
employment
Sutton v. Hart 3d DCA reversed rehab. alimony
746 So. 2d 1175 award to enable wife to complete
(Fla. 3d DCA education and obtain certificate in
1999) sonagraphy finding she did not
need assistance for self support,
noting her aspiration to acquire
training in a new field was
insufficient to justify award
Young v. Hector 3d DCA reversed rehab. alimony
740 So. 2d 1153 award as inadequate in light of
(Fla. 3d DCA rehab. plan presented by former
1998) husband and lifestyle established
during marriage
Saporito v. Trial court awarded rehab. alimony
Saporito but the order did not make
831 So. 2d 697 specific findings to support award;
(Fla. 5th DCA 5th DCA remanded for court to
2002) make express findings to support
its conclusion that this is a proper
case for rehab. alimony, amount
and duration
Vitalis v. Vitalis 5th DCA reversed award of permanent
799 So. 2d 1127 and rehabilitative alimony;
(Fla. 5th DCA remanded for entry of findings of
2001) fact noting that wife's rehab. plan
was sufficient, but she may be
entitled to permanent alimony
Rivers v. Rivers 5th DCA affirmed denial of
785 So. 2d 752 rehabilitative alimony; evidence showed
(Fla. 5th DCA that this short term marriage did not
2001) affect the wife's employability & wife
failed to provide a plan for
rehabilitation
Cases Reversing Award of Rehabilitative Alimony and Remanding for
Permanent Alimony after 1/1/1998
Case Length Wife's Wife's
Of age Income
Marriage
Mobley v. 14 yrs. 46 0
Mobley
778 So. 2d
343(Fla. 1st
DCA 2000)
Hall v. Hall approx. 24
721 So. 2d years
446(Fla. 1st
DCA 1998)
Knoff v. Knoff approx. 13 38 Capable of
751 So. 2d 167 years earning
(Fla.2d DCA $40,000-$60,000
2000)
Cardillo v. 14 years
Cardillo
707 So. 2d
350(Fla. 2d
DCA 1998)
Lynch v. Lynch 12 years 51 probably 0;
695 So. 2d 843 expected to
(Fla.3dDCA earn
1997) $28,000
Hill v. Hooten 17 years 44 $785
776 So. 2d (capacity
1004 (Fla. 5th to earn
DCA 2001) $1,750 per
month)
Case Husband's Alimony
Income Awarded
Mobley v. over $1,000 per
Mobley $72,000 month rehab
778 So. 2d per year alimony
343(Fla. 1st (2 yrs.)
DCA 2000)
Hall v. Hall $2,500 per
721 So. 2d month rehab.
446(Fla. 1st alimony
DCA 1998)
Knoff v. Knoff $156,000 $2,200 per
751 So. 2d 167 month rehab.
(Fla.2d DCA alimony (3
2000) years)
Cardillo v. $700 per
Cardillo month rehab.
707 So. 2d alimony (24
350(Fla. 2d mos.)
DCA 1998)
Lynch v. Lynch $238,000 $2,000/mo.
695 So. 2d 843 per year Rehab.
(Fla.3dDCA alimony
1997) (60 mos.)
Hill v. Hooten $5,850 $500 per
776 So. 2d month
1004 (Fla. 5th Rehab.
DCA 2001) alimony
(36 mos.)
Case Wife's Rehab
Skills at Plan
divorce
Mobley v. none No
Mobley
778 So. 2d
343(Fla. 1st
DCA 2000)
Hall v. Hall
721 So. 2d
446(Fla. 1st
DCA 1998)
Knoff v. Knoff liberal arts Yes
751 So. 2d 167 degree (psych.
(Fla.2d DCA & hotel mgmt.)
2000)
Cardillo v. Teacher No
Cardillo (did not
707 So. 2d work for 9
350(Fla. 2d years)
DCA 1998)
Lynch v. Lynch Political science
695 So. 2d 843 degree and one
(Fla.3dDCA year law school
1997)
Hill v. Hooten Registered No
776 So. 2d Nurse
1004 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2001)
Case Court Action
Mobley v. 1st DCA reversed rehab. alimony
Mobley award & remanded to determine
778 So. 2d sufficient award of permanent
343(Fla. 1st periodic alimony
DCA 2000)
Hall v. Hall 1st DCA reversed rehab. alimony
721 So. 2d award & remanded for permanent
446(Fla. 1st periodic alimony, finding award of
DCA 1998) $2500 per mo. rehab. alimony appeared
excessive in light of husband's
other financial obligations
Knoff v. Knoff 2d DCA reversed rehab. alimony
751 So. 2d 167 award & remanded for award of
(Fla.2d DCA permanent alimony, taking into
2000) consideration most recent income
enjoyed by the parties during
marriage, rather than Wife's
post-separation lifestyle
Cardillo v. 2d DCA reversed rehab. alimony
Cardillo award & remanded for trial court
707 So. 2d to reconsider type and amount of
350(Fla. 2d alimony, noting permanent alimony
DCA 1998) is appropriate as wife
sacrificed career to stay home and
raise children
Lynch v. Lynch Reversed rehab. alimony award &
695 So. 2d 843 remanded for permanent alimony in
(Fla.3dDCA amount commensurate with standard of
1997) living established during the marriage;
wife ceased employment to care
for parties child.
Hill v. Hooten 5th DCA reversed award of rehab.
776 So. 2d alimony when there was no evidence
1004 (Fla. 5th that after rehab. period, wife
DCA 2001) could earn income sufficient to
enjoy lifestyle close to what she
enjoyed during marriage; remanded
for permanent alimony or to set
forth findings of fact upon which it
bases denial of such award
Cases Affirming the Award of Rehabilitative Alimony
After 1/1/1998
Case Length Wife's
Of Age
Marriage
Martire v. Less than 1
Martire year
792 So. 2d 631
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Spenceley v. 10 years
Spenceley
746 So. 2d 505
(Fla. 4th DCA
1999)
Barner v. 24 years $873,107.50
Barner in future
716 So. 2d 795 income
(Fla. 4th DCA from
1998) timberland
Short v. Short 7 years 34 approx.
747 So. 2d 411 $20,000 per
(Fla. 5th DCA year
1999)
Case Husband's Alimony
Income Awarded
Martire v. $500 per
Martire month
792 So. 2d 631 rehab.
(Fla. 4th DCA alimony
2001) (19 mos.)
Spenceley v. Twice the $600 rehab.
Spenceley amount of alimony
746 So. 2d 505 the Wife
(Fla. 4th DCA
1999)
Barner v. $135,000 per $1,800 per
Barner year month
716 So. 2d 795 rehab.
(Fla. 4th DCA alimony
1998) (2 yrs.)
Short v. Short $33,000
747 So. 2d 411
(Fla. 5th DCA
1999)
Case Wife's Skills Rehab
at divorce Plan
Martire v. Spoke little Yes
Martire English
792 So. 2d 631
(Fla. 4th DCA
2001)
Spenceley v. x-ray technician Yes
Spenceley
746 So. 2d 505
(Fla. 4th DCA
1999)
Barner v. teaching degree; No
Barner but never
716 So. 2d 795 worked outside
(Fla. 4th DCA home
1998)
Short v. Short bank teller Yes
747 So. 2d 411 planned to
(Fla. 5th DCA become teacher
1999)
Case Court Action
Martire v. 4th DCA affirmed rehab. alimony
Martire award to help wife transition
792 So. 2d 631 herself to life in America when she
(Fla. 4th DCA came to America with son to marry
2001) husband and her entire support
system was in Russia
Spenceley v. 4th DCA affirmed rehab. alimony
Spenceley award when wife had a skill and
746 So. 2d 505 could develop her full capacity for
(Fla. 4th DCA support by obtaining a
1999) mammographer's license
Barner v. 4th DCA affirmed rehab. alimony
Barner award & found no abuse
716 So. 2d 795 of discretion in award to enable
(Fla. 4th DCA her to "bridge the gap" between
1998) married & unmarried life, given
immediate illiquidity of her
assets
Short v. Short 5th DCA reversed denial of rehab.
747 So. 2d 411 alimony & commuted for trial court
(Fla. 5th DCA to determine appropriate amount,
1999) finding rehab. alimony is appropriate
where wife interrupted her
education in order to support
husband while he was in school
(1) Bacon, 819 So. 2d at 954. (2) Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). (3) Bacon, 819 So. 2d at 956. (4) Ira Mark Ellman, The Maturing Law of Divorce Finances: Toward Rules and Guidelines, 33 FAM. L. Q. 801, 807 (1999). (5) Id. at 813. (6) Marti E. Thurman, Maintenance: A Recognition of the Need for Guidelines, 33 U. LOUISVILLE J. FAM. L. 971, 972 (1995). (7) In determining a proper award of alimony or maintenance, the court shall consider all relevant economic factors, including but not limited to: a) The standard of living established during the marriage. b) The duration of the marriage. c) The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party. d) The financial resources of each party, the nonmarital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each. e) When applicable, the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment. f) The contribution of each party to the marriage, including, but not limited to, services rendered in homemaking, child care, education, and career building of the other party. g) All sources of income available to either party. The court may consider any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. FLA. STAT. ch. 61.08 (2002). (8) O'Connor v. O'Conner, 782 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2001); Tarkow v. Tarkow, 805 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2001); Austin v. Austin, 785 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2001); Rashotsky v. Rashotsky, 782 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2001); Gallinar v. Gallinar, 763 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2000); Ballesteros v. Ballesteros, 819 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2002), and Vorcheimer v. Vorcheimer, 780 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2001). (9) Lowman v. Lowman, 724 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1999); and Bacon o. Bacon, 819 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2002). (10) Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1999); Athey v. Athey, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D788 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2003). (11) Gandul v. Gandul, 696 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1997); Green v. Green, 672 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1996); Zelahi v. Zelahi, 646 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1994); Shea v. Shea, 572 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1990); Vena v. Veta, 556 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1990); Kanouse v. Kanouse, 549 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1989); Whitley v. Whitley, 535 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1988); Murray v. Murray, 374 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1979). (12) American Law Institute, Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations (2002), [section] 5.02, comment a. (11) Id. at [section] 5.03. (14) Id. at Appendix II. (15) Id. Victoria M. Ho, of Asbell & Ho, PA., Naples, is board certified in marital and family law. She received her B.A., magna cum laude, front the University of Minnesota and her J.D. from the University of Wisconsin Law School. Ms. Ho is a fellow, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Jennifer J. Cohen of Asbell & Ho, P.A., Naples, received her B.A. from Emory University and her JD., cum laude, front the Florida State University College of Law. This column is submitted on behalf of the Family Law Section, Richard D. West, chair, and Michele Kane Cummings and Jeffrey Weissman, editors. |
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion