NORMA LEE PACE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROCCO PACE, 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 marital dissolution appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's award of lump sum alimony and rehabilitative alimony. The appellate court affirmed the property division and financial allocations but modified the alimony award from rehabilitative to permanent alimony, given the wife's eighteen-year marriage and lack of marketable skills.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's allocation of assets and attorney's fees but modified the alimony award from rehabilitative to permanent alimony, finding that the wife's circumstances warranted permanent rather than temporary support.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony may be converted to permanent alimony upon appellate review.
[2] A spouse's equity in a marital home titled as an estate by the entirety is generally considered their individual property upon dissolution, not lump sum alimony.
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 intelligence“We affirm all the allocations made by the trial court except that we make the award of alimony permanent rather than rehabilitative.”
The court's holding modifying the trial court's award from rehabilitative to permanent alimony.
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 eighteen years. The wife was primarily a housekeeper and mother of two children with no appreciable skills. The marital h…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is another marital dissolution case in which the wife complains of the award of lump sum alimony and rehabilitative alimony.
The marriage had an eighteen year duration in which the wife was primarily a housekeeper and mother of two children with no appreciative skills. The marital home is to be sold and over half of the net proceeds are to be used to liquidate debts that were largely incurred for ventures not connected with the home. The balance of the proceeds were awarded as lump sum alimony1 and the wife was awarded $100.00 a week as rehabilitative alimony. The court fixed an amount of attorneys fees due the wife as $15,000.00 and directed that the husband be responsible for only $10,000.00 thereof.
We affirm all the allocations made by the trial court except that we make the award of alimony permanent rather than rehabilitative. Patrick v. Patrick, 399 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Messer v. Messer, 342 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Affirmed as amended.
. The wife really was not awarded lump sum alimony, in fact, what she should receive from the sale of the home will approximate her equity therein.
The home is titled in the estate of the entire-ties. It has an equity above the first and second mortgage of approximately $170,000.00. upon the entry of the final judgment of dissolution by operation of law, the parties become tenants in common, Abella-Fernandez v. Abella, 393 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Greene v. Greene, 199 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Wild v. Wild, 157 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Section 689.15 Florida Statutes (1979) with each entitled, upon the sale, to one-half of the proceeds, or approximately $85,000.00. Therefore the wife is entitled to receive at least $70,000.00 as the owner thereof and this amount should not be considered lump sum alimony. It is also appropriate on this record for the husband’s share in the proceeds of the sale to be used exclusively to liquidate the outstanding debts, because these obligations (which the wife was required to sign) were incurred primarily in connection with the husband’s business activities.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Messer v. Addison L. Messer, 342 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Manuel E. Abella-Fernandez, M.D. v. Abella, 393 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Patrick v. Patrick, 399 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Wild v. Wild, 157 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Greene v. Greene, 199 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)