ALBENA CARRIER, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH A. CARRIER, SR., 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 appeals a divorce judgment, challenging the trial court's award of only rehabilitative alimony at $46.50 per week instead of permanent alimony. The appellate court reversed the alimony provision, holding that permanent alimony was appropriate under the wife's circumstances and that the reduced award was error given the husband's prior voluntary payments.
The court held that permanent alimony, not merely rehabilitative alimony, was appropriate. The court reversed the alimony provision and remanded with directions to award permanent alimony of $380.00 per month ($88.37 per week), as the wife's circumstances did not support a reduction from the husband's prior voluntary payments of $185 per week.
[1] An award of permanent alimony is not contingent upon proof of permanent inability to become self-sustaining.
[2] A spouse's long-term marriage, lack of work experience outside the home, limited education and skills, and responsibility for minor children may support an award of perma…
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 evidence in this case just does not reflect a permanent inability on the part of appellee to become self-sustaining. Without that, there can be no award of permanent alimony.”
Prior doctrine from Crees v. Crees requiring proof of permanent dependence; this principle was subsequently overruled.
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 nineteen years. At the time of trial in September 1980, the wife was thirty-nine years old with a high school education 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 Standard Of Living cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The trial court’s order awarded her custody of the parties’ two minor children, ages one and ten, exclusive use of the marital home during the minority of the children, $32.56 per week child support for each child, $46.50 per week rehabilitative alimony for five years, $124.00 per month or whatever sum constituted one-half of the required first mortgage payment, $16.00 per month toward the maintenance of the home, and attorneys’ fees of $250.00 and costs of $96.00. The wife contends it was error to award alimony of only $46.50 per week and only rehabilitative alimony.
Appellee relies upon our decision in Crees v. Crees, 342 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), in support of the trial court’s award of only rehabilitative alimony. In Crees we said, “The evidence in this case just does not reflect a permanent inability on the part of appellee to become self-sustaining. Without that, there can be no award of permanent alimony.” Id. at 1016. We believe the foregoing doctrine was overruled by our later decision of Garrison v. Garrison, 351 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). In Garrison we held permanent dependence on a husband was not an essential element requiring proof before an award of permanent alimony could issue.
In the present case, at the time of the final hearing in September of 1980, the wife was thirty-nine years old and had been married to appellee for nineteen years. Their standard of living, prior to their separation, was good. She never worked outside the home during the marriage, except when she temporarily sold Avon products and secured occasional cleaning jobs in the neighborhood three or four times a month. She testified she has a high school education but no skills and does not own an automobile, although she recently learned to drive. She further testified that whatever jobs appeared available were at the minimum wage level and not worth leaving her minor children at home without her supervision. She raised the parties’ four children. In our mind the foregoing facts compel the award of permanent alimony. McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1978).
We also agree with the wife’s contention that the award of $46.50 per week was error. When the parties separated, the husband was voluntarily paying the wife $210.00 per week. In the nine months prior to the final hearing the husband had been voluntarily paying the wife $185.00 per week because of a cutback in his overtime. There was no evidence that the wife’s needs were any less than they were when the husband was voluntarily paying $185.00 per week. She was receiving approximately $800.00 per month prior to the final hearing for all of her needs and those of the children; it was error to reduce that sum. Accordingly, we reverse the alimony provision of the final judgment and remand the cause with directions to enter an award of permanent alimony of $380.00 per month payable $88.37 per week.1 The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur. . The figure of $380.00 is based upon total benefits of $800.00 per month. The $800.00 represents the alimony to be awarded and the child support, mortgage, and maintenance payments already awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DE Cenzo v. de Cenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…dependence by the wife on her husband is a factor to be considered, but it is not an essential element which must be proved before there can be an award of permanent alimony. Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 at 474. See also Carrier v. Carrier, 409 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Appellant argues that the amount of the permanent alimony award was too low. She asserts that her needs and her former husband’s ability to pay warrant a much higher amount. Appellee, needless to say, argues strenuously that th…
-
Barbara v. Salisbury, 525 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ties’ positions constitutes an abuse of discretion. Although the wife is arguably self-supporting, she need not demonstrate total dependency to justify an award of alimony. DeCenzo v. DeCenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Carrier v. Carrier, 409 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The issue is whether the former spouse is able to support himself or herself in a manner which is reasonably commensurate with the standard established during the marriage. Cosgrove v. Cosgrove, 491 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 198…
-
Constantin Contogeorgos v. Contogeorgos, 482 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…tant in determining whether permanent periodic or rehabilitative alimony should be awarded. While “permanent dependence on a husband [is] not an essential element requiring proof before an award of permanent alimony could issue,” Carrier v. Carrier, 409 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), it is clear that decisional authority, in approving awards of rehabilitative alimony, has placed great emphasis on the wife’s ability to become self-supporting. Where the wife has the wherewithal to make it on her own, reha…
Authorities Cited
- McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Silas Ray Crees v. Mara King Crees, 342 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Garrison v. Garrison, 351 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)