CARL A. DEVITO, APPELLANT,
v.
PATSY MARION DEVITO, 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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reviews the trial court's awards of alimony, property division, and attorney's fees. The court affirms most of the judgment but reverses the automatic reductions in permanent alimony, establishing that the wife should receive a consistent $500 biweekly payment.
The court affirms the alimony amount, attorney's fee award, and property division, but reverses the automatic reductions in permanent alimony. The wife is entitled to receive $500 biweekly permanently until remarriage or death of either party, rather than the scheduled decreases to $400 biweekly after 30 months and $325 biweekly after 60 months.
[1] A trial court may award permanent periodic alimony in a dissolution of marriage case.
[2] A trial court has discretion to order the sale of marital property and an equal division of the proceeds.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It would appear that all points raised by the parties, with the exception of the automatic reduction in alimony, should be affirmed.”
Establishes the court's general affirmance of the trial court's alimony amount and attorney's fee award while identifying the specific issue requiring reversal.
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 thirty years. The wife, age 51 at dissolution, had not been gainfully employed since early in the marriage and was unempl…
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal and cross-appeal seek review of those portions of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage pertaining to alimony, property settlement, and attorney’s fees.
In the final judgment, the trial court awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony of $500.00 biweekly for 30 months beginning August 1, 1979, $400.00 biweekly for the subsequent 30 months, and $325.00 biweekly until remarriage of the wife or death of either of the parties. The judgment ordered a lot owned by the parties and the marital home be sold, with the proceeds divided equally. The trial court also ordered the husband to pay sixty percent of the wife’s attorney fees, for a total payment of $5,100.00.
This marriage was of thirty years’ duration and, at the time of the dissolution, the wife was 51 years old. She had not been gainfully employed since the early years of the marriage and was not employed at the time of the dissolution of the marriage. The husband is employed as a purchasing manager for Dow Chemical Company, earning a gross salary in excess of $46,000.00. He contends his net income is just over $27,000.00.
On appeal, the husband alleges the award of alimony is excessive and that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay sixty percent of the wife’s attorney fees. The wife cross-appealed, alleging the trial court erred in failing to award her the marital home as lump sum alimony, in failing to recognize the wife’s special equity in the marital home, and in ordering automatic future reductions of permanent alimony.
It would appear that all points raised by the parties, with the exception of the automatic reduction in alimony, should be affirmed. See: Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). As to the automatic reduction in the award of permanent alimony, it would appear that portion of the award should be reversed, setting the award of permanent alimony at $500.00 biweekly. See: McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Therefore, we modify so much of the final judgment that reduces her permanent alimony after thirty and sixty months, so that she continue to receive $500.00 biweekly until remarriage of the wife or death of either of the parties.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Monserrate B. McNAUGHTON v. McNAUGHTON, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)