ANITA P. WOLK, APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ALLAN WOLK, 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 following a 23-year marriage, the wife appealed the trial court's failure to award permanent alimony and full interest in the marital home, while the husband cross-appealed provisions awarding the wife interests in his business venture, stocks, pension, and life insurance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to award rehabilitative alimony for three years while reserving jurisdiction on permanent alimony, finding this procedure within the trial court's discretion.
The trial court did not err in reserving jurisdiction on permanent alimony and awarding rehabilitative alimony instead, as this procedure falls within the trial court's discretion. All other points of appeal regarding asset distribution fall within the trial court's discretion and were properly decided.
[1] A trial court may reserve jurisdiction to determine permanent periodic alimony at a later date, rather than making an immediate award.
[2] Rehabilitative alimony may be awarded for a specified period, subject to modification by further court order.
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 Court reserves jurisdiction to determine whether permanent periodic alimony is to be awarded. At this time, the Court hereby orders the Husband to pay to the Wife as and for rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $150.00 per week for a period of three years from the entry of this judgment, unless and until this provision is superseded by further Order.”
The trial court's approach of awarding rehabilitative alimony while reserving jurisdiction on 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 23 years and had three children, two of whom were minors at dissolution. The wife lacks vocational or technical training …
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
PURDY, H. MARK, Associate Judge.
The lower court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, after which the wife appealed and the husband cross-appealed. The wife cites the failure of the lower court to award permanent alimony and the full interest in the marital home. The husband attacks provisions of the final judgment which awarded the wife special equities in the husband’s interests in a joint venture, as well as the husband’s stocks, pension rights, and life insurance policies.
The parties were married for twenty-three years, in which time three children were born, two of whom were minors at the time of the dissolution. The wife’s ability to provide for herself is limited by virtue of a lack of vocational or technical training, and is compounded by the fact that she had an on-the-job injury at her last place of employment in early 1979. The wife has a real estate license, but claims to be unable to pursue this on a full-time basis. Other attempts to gain employment have not been successful.
Considering these factors, as well as the other criteria set forth in McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), the wife has a rather persuasive argument that she is entitled to permanent alimony. However, with regard to this issue, the court ruled as follows: The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine whether permanent periodic alimony is to be awarded. At this time, the Court hereby orders the Husband to pay to the Wife as and for rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $150.00 per week for a period of three years from the entry of this judgment, unless and until this provision is superseded by further Order. Now the wife appeals asserting error on the part of the lower court for failure to make an immediate award of permanent alimony. While the procedure used by the lower court is not common, it is not without precedent and in fact has been previously approved by this Court as being within the trial court’s discretion. See Kaylor v. Kaylor, 390 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), which we find to be controlling here.
The other points on appeal have been carefully considered, and we find them all to fall within the discretion of the trial court, and affirm pursuant to Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
AFFIRMED.
HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Kaylor v. Kaylor, 390 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)