SHIRLEY A. FINLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT C. FINLEY, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the wife's prayer for alimony, considering the established criteria.
[1] A trial court must consider the ability to pay of one spouse and the needs of the other spouse, including the marital standard of living, when determining alimony.
[2] A trial court retains jurisdiction to determine all relief sought in pleadings when it reserves jurisdiction in an interim order.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife, unemployed with health issues and limited education, sought alimony in a dissolution proceeding. The husband had a steady income and owned a…
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 Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from the final judgment of the trial court denying alimony to appellant/wife.
The proceedings were initiated by appel-lee/husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage. The wife filed an answer and petitioned for temporary and permanent alimony. In the final judgment of October 6, 1976, the trial court awarded the wife, as temporary alimony, the temporary exclusive use of the parties’ marital home and reserved jurisdiction to later determine “all other relief sought by the pleadings of the parties.” The prayer for alimony was ultimately denied by the trial court’s order entered October 11, 1978.
The parties had been married 20 years. The wife, forty-one years old, unemployed, with an eleventh grade education, had worked outside the home for only three months during the parties’ marriage. She had raised the two children of the parties, done the housework and helped care for the livestock. The wife, has rheumatoid arthritis and back and neck injuries sustained in two automobile accidents, and no immediate prospects for employment. The husband, forty-two years old, is employed with Florida Power and Light earning a net income in excess of $365 bi-weekly at the time of the hearing. He also owned an electrical business from which he had earned $900 in 1977.
The criteria to be considered in determining the nature and amount of alimony are: (1) the ability to pay on the part of one spouse and (2) the needs of the other spouse, taking into consideration the standard of living shared by the parties to the marriage. Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1976); McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Wilson v. Wilson, 279 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Proper consideration of these criteria in this case requires some provision be made for the wife pursuant to her claim for alimony.
Accordingly, the order of October 11, 1978, insofar as it denies the prayer for alimony, is REVERSED.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and SHIVERS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1976)
- Mazel & Broche, Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Miami, 279 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)