KENNETH MILES KAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARON KAYLOR, 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.
Kenneth Kaylor appealed a divorce decree awarding his former wife Sharon rehabilitative alimony, child support, and house expenses that the appellate court found exceeded his financial ability to pay. The court reversed the financial award and remanded for recalculation that would balance the wife's needs with the husband's ability to provide.
The court held that the total financial award exceeded Kenneth's ability to pay and was therefore erroneous, as it took him from financial well-being to financial hardship. The award was reversed and remanded for the trial court to fashion an award that balances Sharon's needs with Kenneth's actual ability to pay.
[1] An award of rehabilitative alimony must be supported by the payor's ability to pay.
[2] A trial court must consider both the needs of one spouse and the ability of the other spouse to provide funds when determining an award of alimony.
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“Factors to be considered by the trial court in determining an award of alimony are the needs of the one spouse and the ability of the other to provide funds.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for alimony awards requiring consideration of both recipient's needs and payor's ability
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 married in 1973 and had two children. At the time of the hearing, Sharon worked as a real estate salesperson earning $745/month gross and …
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 Needs Of Spouse cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Kenneth Kaylor appeals from the terms of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, alleging that the award to Sharon Kaylor of rehabilitative alimony was not supported by his ability to pay. We agree that the total award exceeds appellant’s ability to pay, and we reverse.
The parties were married in 1973 and had two children. Prior to the marriage, appel-lee worked as a secretary in the real estate business, and had received a real estate sales license. At the time of final hearing, appellee was permanently employed as a real estate salesperson. For the sixteen months prior to the hearing, she received a gross income of $745.00 per month. Appel-lee testified she needed an additional $1,200.00 per month in order to sustain herself and children in their accustomed lifestyle. Appellant worked for an insurance agency for eleven years, with a salary for the last twelve months of $600.00 per week gross, or $462.00 per week net. Appellant owned 20% of the stock in the agency, with his uncle owning the remaining stock. Appellant’s 20% interest in the company was estimated by appellee to be worth $100,-000.00. The only other assets of the parties consisted of the marital home and furnishings.
The court awarded custody of the minor children to appellee, exclusive use and benefit of the house to appellee, and required appellant to pay rehabilitative alimony of $4,800.00 per year for two years, child support of $7,800.00 per year, and one-half the mortgage payments, maintenance, taxes and insurance on the house, amounting to $4,230.00 per year.
The trial court also required appellant to provide an automobile to appellee, pay all medical and dental expenses of the children, and provide life insurance to secure the support payments. Under the final judgment below, appellant’s net income of approximately $2,000.00 per month is decreased by rehabilitative alimony of $400.00, child support of $650.00 and house expenses of $345.00. Of the remaining $600.00, appellant must supply appellee a car, life insurance to secure support, and medical expenses of the children. While disputed testimony indicated that appellant’s interest in the insurance agency might be of substantial value, the minority interest in a small business was not readily marketable for cash.
Additionally, the net amount ordered paid to appel-lee, plus her income, exceeds the expenses indicated by her testimony and financial affidavit by $175.00 monthly.
Factors to be considered by the trial court in determining an award of alimony are the needs of the one spouse and the ability of the other to provide funds. Canakaris v. Canakaris. 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The final judgment below erroneously took appellant from a position of financial well-being to financial misfortune. See Parham v. Parham, 385 So. 2d 107 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 372 So. 2d 178 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
The financial aspects of the award below are REVERSED and the case REMANDED for the trial court to fashion an award consistent with appellee’s needs and appellant’s ability to pay. All other aspects of the final judgment are AFFIRMED.
GRIMES, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…erties. Appellate courts have not hesitated to find an abuse of discretion in similar awards. Blum v. Blum; Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (awards totalling 71% of husband’s take home pay an abuse of discretion); Kaylor v. Kaylor, 413 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (awards of in excess of 70% of husband’s take home pay an abuse of discretion); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 372 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (award of 86% of current take home pay an abuse of discretion). In response, the wife point…
-
Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…dren and his former wife’s monthly alimony award of $2,000. We conclude that the amount of the rehabilitative alimony award was clearly excessive in light of Mrs. Martinez’s demonstrated needs and Mr. Martinez’s ability to pay. See Kaylor v. Kaylor, 413 So. 2d 870, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony excessive as it erroneously took husband from a position of financial well-being to financial misfortune where the award, in light of other provisions of final judgment, exceeded…
-
Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…propriety of the actions taken by the trial court”) (emphasis in original); Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (error to award all but $328 of husband’s imputed take-home pay of $1500 for child support and alimony); Kaylor v. Kaylor, 413 So. 2d 870, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (reversing where court awarded more than $1400 of $2000 net income as support, noting that judgment “erroneously took appellant from a position of financial well-being to financial misfortune”). In addition to the error in a…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Nicholson v. Glynn C. Nicholson, 372 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Parham v. Parham, 385 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)