ROBETTE HEILIG, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN K. HEILIG, 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.
In this Florida divorce appeal, the court reversed the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony to a long-term homemaker and awarded permanent alimony instead, also requiring the husband to pay the wife's attorney's fees. The decision establishes that absent concrete evidence of a spouse's ability to become self-supporting, rehabilitative alimony is inappropriate after a 21-year marriage.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only rehabilitative alimony because there was no proof that Mrs. Heilig could become self-supporting, and that the court also abused its discretion in failing to award attorney's fees to Mrs. Heilig to ensure she could obtain competent legal counsel.
[1] Permanent alimony may be awarded when a spouse lacks proof of self-supportability, even if they possess some talents or attractiveness.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to award permanent alimony when there is a complete absence of proof that a spouse can become self-supporting.
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“Since there was a complete absence of proof that Mrs. Heilig could become self-supporting through modeling, we hold that the failure to award permanent alimony constituted an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the court's standard that rehabilitative alimony requires concrete evidence of actual ability to become self-sufficient, not merely apparent potential.
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 21 years and had three children. Mrs. Heilig completed two years of college but was not employed outside the home until 1…
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 Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
On this appeal appellant/wife contends that she should have been awarded permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony. Also, she claims that the trial court erred in failing to award her attorney’s fees. We find that both contentions are meritorious and thus we reverse.
The parties were married for twenty-one years and had three children. Mrs. Heilig, who has completed two years of college, was never employed outside the home during the marriage until 1976 or 1977 when she began free lance modeling. Her income from modeling did not exceed $4,000 a year. Since this action was begun she has supplemented her income by working as a salesperson in a dress shop for $3.75 per hour. Mr. Heilig, on the other hand, is a college graduate and has steadily climbed the corporate ladder, so that his income in recent years, including bonuses, has been between $50,000 and $60,000 including benefits. His separate property includes monies in a savings account and profit sharing plan, stocks and bonds worth approximate $18,000, and life insurance policies with a cash surrender value of approximately $18,000. Jointly owned property consists of the marital home with a value between $165,000 and $175,000, a savings account with a balance of approximately $2,000 and a 1976 Cadillac.
Mrs. Heilig has no separate assets other than a checking account with a balance of approximately $1,000.
The trial court found that Mrs. Heil-ig was entitled only to rehabilitative alimony due to her “apparent talents, attractiveness and ability,” and the fact that she would receive approximately $75,000 from the sale of the marital home. Since there was a complete absence of proof that Mrs. Heilig could become self-supporting through modeling, we hold that the failure to award permanent alimony constituted an abuse of discretion. See Goss v. Goss, 400 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
In light of the contemplated award of permanent alimony, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s failure to award the home as lump sum alimony, but do find an abuse of discretion in the court’s failure to award attorney’s fees to Mrs. Heilig. Attorney’s fees are awarded in order to ensure that both parties have a similar ability to obtain competent legal counsel. Gerber v. Gerber, 392 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The record before us reflects that Mrs. Heilig lacks funds or assets with which to pay attorney’s fees. Mr. Heilig should therefore be required to do so. Id.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corrie v. Corrie, 428 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…can become self-supporting requires that the award of half rehabilitative and half permanent alimony be entirely permanent. Nichols v. Nichols, 418 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Goss v. Goss, 400 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Heilig v. Heilig, 400 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Gerber v. Gerber, 392 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Thus, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions to award appellant a total of $1,200 per month in per…
Authorities Cited
- Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Applewhite v. Kreiger, 392 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Dorothie C. Goss v. Goss, 400 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)