RITA M. TIERNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN S. TIERNEY, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wife's appeal from rehabilitative alimony award in 27-year marriage reversed; court awarded permanent alimony of $150 weekly based on husband's demonstrated earning capacity.
In a long-term marriage, rehabilitative alimony is inappropriate without evidence supporting it, and alimony must be based on current demonstrated income rather than speculative future reductions.
[1] In a long-term marriage, rehabilitative alimony requires evidentiary support and cannot be awarded without evidence distinguishing it from permanent alimony.
[2] Alimony awards must be based on the obligor's demonstrated current earning capacity rather than speculative or anticipated future income reductions.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a 27-year marriage, the trial court awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony for eight years, calculating the amount based on the husband's testi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Earning Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the wife from an order awarding her rehabilitative alimony for eight years upon dissolution of a twenty-seven year marriage. There is no evidence in the record to support an award for rehabilitative rather than permanent alimony. In addition, it appears that the amount of the alimony award was erroneously predicated on the husband’s testimony that he contemplated a reduction in income in the future. In essence, the wife was left in the position of seeking a modification if the reduction did not occur. The undisputed evidence at the time of the final hearing was that the husband had already earned income of $32,000.00 for the first eleven months of the year. His earnings in recent years were substantially the same. Based upon this evidence we believe the wife was entitled to a minimum of $150.00 weekly permanent alimony. Should the husband’s expectations as to a future decrease in annual income actually occur, he may seek a modification of the judgment.
The evidence was not sufficient to establish that the reduction had already occurred.
Accordingly, the judgment for rehabilitative alimony is reversed with directions that judgment be entered for permanent alimony in the amount of $150.00 weekly.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., and GREEN, R. A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.