SUZANNE B. O'BRIEN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM F. O'BRIEN, III, 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.
The court held that the award of rehabilitative alimony was inadequate and modified the amount, affirming the rest of the dissolution judgment.
[1] Lump sum rehabilitative alimony may be awarded payable over a period of time and survives the death or remarriage of the parties.
[2] A trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony may be modified when the amount awarded is found to be inadequate to meet the needs of the recipient during the rehabilita…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA dissolution of marriage judgment awarded custody, child support, rehabilitative alimony, property division, and attorney fees. Both parties appealed…
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 Tenancy In Common cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The final judgment of dissolution under review in this appeal awarded the wife custody, child support, lump sum rehabilitative alimony, certain personal property which had been jointly held, and attorneys fees. The wife and husband were decreed to be tenants in common in certain jointly owned realty and, in addition, the husband was awarded a waterfront lot and certain personal property.
The wife contends that the award of rehabilitative alimony was improper and inadequate, that the child support awarded was inadequate, and that allowing some of the personal property to remain jointly owned constituted error. The husband, by way of cross-appeal, suggests that error was committed in awarding rehabilitative alimony “irrespective of remarriage or death of either party” and in awarding the wife attorneys fees.
After considering each point raised by the parties, we find no reversible error except the amount awarded, the wife as lump sum rehabilitative alimony. The sum of $100 per week is inadequate to meet her needs during the rehabilitative period. Upon consideration of the record, the amount of lump sum rehabilitative alimony should be increased to $32,500 payable at the rate of $200 per week. The husband contends that the provision awarding rehabilitative alimony in lump sum payable in installments to “continue irrespective of the death or remarriage of either of the parties” constitutes error. We disagree. Rehabilitative alimony may be awarded in lump sum payable over a period of time and lump sum alimony survives the death or remarriage of the parties. Cann v. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We would distinguish the case of Richter v. Richter, 344 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), as it did not involve an award of rehabilitative alimony in lump sum. Therefore, the award was modifiable and terminable upon death or remarriage.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects except as modified above.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
LETTS, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Akers v. Akers, 518 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ay be awarded in lump sum payments, the cases addressing lump sum rehabilitative awards specifically refer to the lump sum award as being payable over time. See, e.g., Faircloth v. Faircloth, 449 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) and O’Brien v. O’Brien, 423 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Here, the trial court improperly permitted the former husband, at his option, to divest the former wife of her right to seek future modification of the award. Rehabilitative alimony can be modified by an extension of the award,…
Authorities Cited
- Tedford J. Cann v. Margery M. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Richter v. Richter, 344 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)