BETTY MABIE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
J. RALPH MABIE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of permanent or rehabilitative alimony to the wife and reduced attorney's fees award. The court held that a 49-year-old wife with banking experience and no assets was entitled to rehabilitative alimony to facilitate her return to the workforce, regardless of her temporary support from a male friend.
The court held that the wife was entitled to rehabilitative alimony in a reasonable amount for a reasonable time to help her reenter the workforce and achieve independence, and that the attorney's fees award was inadequate and should reflect the evidence of reasonable fees.
[1] A trial court may award rehabilitative alimony to enable a spouse to reenter the workforce and become financially independent.
[2] A trial court's finding that a spouse is being supported by a third party must be supported by evidence in the record.
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“In our view of this record, this is a proper case for an allowance of rehabilitative alimony in addition to the lump sum award. The wife, at forty-nine, is employable, and she has some experience in banking.”
Establishes that the wife qualified for rehabilitative alimony based on her age, employability, and prior work experience.
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 six years; both had prior marriages. The husband is a lawyer with 25 years of experience, earning $76,000 annually with 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 Alimony Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the wife from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.1
The parties were married some six years. Each had been previously married. The husband is a lawyer of some twenty-five years experience, whose income for the year 1980 was $76,000 and whose net worth is $138,000. The wife is forty-nine years of age; she has no net worth, but does have some experience in banking. She worked with a bank during the marriage until the husband asked her to cease working. During the course of the dissolution proceeding the trial court granted her temporary relief in the amount of $110 per week. The award was characterized as “temporary rehabilitative alimony.” The trial court seemed to feel that the wife should obtain employment and commence her rehabilitation. In any event, she had not obtained employment by final hearing, which apparently upset the trial judge. In the final judgment the court found that the wife was being supported by a male friend in a style at least equivalent to the style she enjoyed during the marriage. This fact, together with the fact that the marriage endured only six years and the court’s feeling that the wife had no intention of seeking rehabilitation, convinced the trial court that the wife should receive no permanent or rehabilitative alimony. He did, however, award her $5,000 lump sum alimony.
The only evidence adduced relative to attorney’s fees was that the reasonable value of the wife’s attorney’s services was $100 per hour. Her lawyer testified that he devoted thirty-five hours to the case. Thus, a reasonable fee would be $3,500; however, the trial court only allowed her $2,500 for her attorney’s fees. In our view of this record, this is a proper case for an allowance of rehabilitative alimony in addition to the lump sum award. The wife, at forty-nine, is employable, and she has some experience in banking. She has no assets and no income. Accordingly, some reasonable award of rehabilitative alimony should have been made to carry her over until she can find employment and is rehabilitated. If she fails to take advantage of it (as apparently the trial judge felt she did pendente lite), then so be it. But the opportunity should be made available to her to reenter the market place and become independent again. We specifically reject the trial judge’s finding relative to her life style with a male friend at the time of final hearing as not supported by the record.
Finally, we also hold that the award of attorney’s fees was inadequate under the evidence. The wife should not have to use up her small lump sum alimony award to pay part of her attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects except as to the award of alimony and attorney’s fees. The case is remanded with directions to award the wife an attorney’s fee consistent with the evidence and to award her rehabilitative alimony in a reasonable amount for a reasonable time.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, and remanded for modification consistent herewith.
DOWNEY, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . The husband has cross appealed, but his failure to present any argument demonstrating error constitutes an abandonment of the cross appeal.