VERONCIA G'SELL, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES JOSEPH G'SELL, 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.
In this divorce appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony and child support. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the child support award but reversed the alimony award, holding that where the wife demonstrated no capacity for self-support, permanent periodic alimony was appropriate rather than rehabilitative alimony.
The court affirmed the child support award, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The court reversed the rehabilitative alimony award and remanded for entry of permanent periodic alimony, holding that rehabilitative alimony is improper when the record shows no evidence that the spouse will be rehabilitated or develop capacity for self-support.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony is improper in the absence of evidence demonstrating the receiving spouse's capacity for self-support, either through redevelopment of previous ski…
[2] Where a spouse has no prior education, skills, or training, and no evidence exists of their actual or potential capacity for self-support, rehabilitative alimony is not a…
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 intelligence“The principal purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self support of the receiving spouse, either through the redevelopment of previous skills or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills.”
Establishes the legal standard for rehabilitative alimony and its purpose
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for approximately 20 years and had three children, two of whom were minors at dissolution. The wife was 21 when she married, …
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 Capacity For Self-Support cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
Two issues are raised by the wife in appealing the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She contends that the trial judge erred in awarding her rehabilitative alimony instead of permanent periodic alimony, and that the award of child support is insufficient.
This marriage of approximately 20 years produced three children, two of whom were minors when the final judgment was entered. What distinguishes this case from most of the reported cases is that we are not dealing with above average available income, but instead are concerned, as was the trial court, with the appropriate distribution of the husband’s earnings of approximately $850 per month, derived from his occupation as an automobile mechanic at which trade he has been employed for about 22 years. He has little prospect for improving his earning capacity.
The trial court awarded custody of the minor children to the wife, gave her the right of possession of the marital home and made provision for the husband to support the minor children until their majority. The wife contends that there was error in the award, but she has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, so the award of support for the minor children is affirmed.
We face a different problem in considering the wife’s contention as to alimony. The wife was 21 years old when she married the appellee, had left school after the seventh grade at age 13, and had never been employed either before or after the marriage. She had no training for any type of employment or occupation and there is no evidence that she is employable. She claims to have health problems which would also interfere with employment. The trial court awarded her rehabilitative alimony of $200 per month for two years without any evidence that she had or could develop any marketable skills during that period, nor that there was any probability that she would be capable of self support at the end of that period.
The principal purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self support of the receiving spouse, either through the redevelopment of previous skills or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Reback v. Reback, 296 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied 312 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1975). As was stated in Reback, the record here is devoid of any evidence that the wife will be rehabilitated in the two year period. Where the prior education, skills or training of the wife do not of themselves show the actual or potential capacity for self support, rehabilitative alimony is improper in the absence of other evidence showing such capacity. Reback, supra; West v. West, 345 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
We reverse the judgment as it pertains to rehabilitative alimony and remand the cause with directions that the trial court enter an award for permanent periodic alimony in such amount as the court shall determine to be appropriate based upon the current needs of the wife and the husband’s ability to pay.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED with directions.
SHARP, J., and BAKER, JOSEPH P., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Campbell v. Chalermsri V. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…to a new life and to aid in obtaining new skills, education and/or other rehabilitation.” We described it as the type of support whose purpose was often to assist the spouse in obtaining a skill and a return to the marketplace. In G’Sell v. G’Sell, 390 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), we held that the principal purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self-support of the receiving spouse, either through the redevelopment of previous skills or through providing the training necessary…
-
Avie Lee Thornton v. Lacy Thornton, Jr., 433 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…ed in this case, so that when combined with the minimal amount she can earn, Avie can keep financially afloat. See, e.g., O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); G’Sell v. G’Sell, 390 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).…
-
Hair v. Hair, 402 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…skills or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills. Reback v. Reback, 296 So. 2d 541 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Where appropriate, rehabilitative alimony may be converted to permanent periodic alimony. In G’Sell v. G’Sell, 390 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), this court, citing Canakaris and Reback, held that where the record was devoid of any evidence as to the wife’s potential for rehabilitation (such evidence would be prior education, skills, training, or other evidence of capacit…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Reback v. Reback, 296 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- West v. West, 345 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Sweetwater Util. Corp. v. Save OUR BAY, Inc., 312 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1975)
- Legis. Auditing Comm. OF Legis. v. Bussey, 312 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1975)