MARGARET E. MAGAROWICZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STANLEY ANTHONY MAGAROWICZ, 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 a divorce appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's decision to award her the marital home and an automobile as lump sum alimony while denying permanent periodic alimony and refusing to reserve jurisdiction for future alimony awards. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion given the wife's stable employment, debt-free home, and the lack of significant income disparity.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying permanent periodic alimony or in declining to reserve jurisdiction for future alimony awards. The wife's stable employment, debt-free home, and lack of demonstrated disparity in income relative to her needs did not warrant permanent alimony.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in failing to award permanent periodic alimony when the requesting spouse has a stable job, unencumbered property, and no sign…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in failing to reserve jurisdiction to award permanent periodic alimony in the future when the issue was not raised below and t…
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“From the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in its failing to award the wife permanent periodic alimony. The wife has a stable job and a home free and clear of any mortgage. Plus, she has not shown such disparity between incomes as demonstrating her need for, and the husband's ability to pay, permanent alimony.”
Establishes the standard and rationale for denying permanent periodic alimony based on the wife's financial stability and lack of income disparity.
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 thirty-five years before separating in March 1981. Both parties are in their fifties; the wife has a mild diabetic condit…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The wife appeals the final judgment of dissolution awarding her, inter alia, the marital home and a 1977 Chrysler New Yorker as lump sum alimony. The issues presented are whether the trial court erred in failing to award permanent periodic alimony and in failing to retain jurisdiction specifically to award permanent alimony in the future.
The parties to this appeal were married for thirty-five years before they separated on March 6, 1981. Their four children are grown and are no longer dependent upon their parents for support. The husband is fifty-seven years old. The wife is fifty-three years old and has a mild diabetic condition controlled by pills and diet.
At the time of the hearing, the husband was employed by the Naval Air Reworks Facility in Jacksonville, Florida, in a U.S. Civil Service position. His monthly net income as shown on his financial affidavit was $1,554.69. The wife works as a registered nurse for St. Luke’s Hospital, also in Jacksonville. Her financial affidavit reflects a net monthly income of $942.89. The major asset of the parties is the unencumbered marital home valued for tax purposes at approximately $27,000.
From the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in its failing to award the wife permanent periodic alimony. The wife has a stable job and a home free and clear of any mortgage. Plus, she has not shown such disparity between incomes as demonstrating her need for, and the husband’s ability to pay, permanent alimony. Cf. Palmer v. Palmer, 338 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); and O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to reserve jurisdiction to award permanent periodic alimony in the future. Initially, we note that nowhere in the record does it appear that the wife raised this issue before the trial court. In any event, the circumstances of this case do not show that such a reservation was re quired. Although, where there has been no initial award of permanent periodic alimony, a trial court is free to retain jurisdiction expressly for that purpose, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980), the trial court here did not abuse its discretion in failing to do so. Cf. Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) and Nichols v. Nichols, 304 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). It was the trial court’s considered opinion, in which we concur, that the award of the marital home and the automobile was equitable under the circumstances.
The final judgment is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krystel v. Alec Krystel, 534 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…wife’s forcible argument to the contrary on appeal. See Scotchel v. Scotchel, 524 So. 2d 1045, 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So. 2d 631, 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1986); Magarowicz v. Magarowicz, 429 So. 2d 376, 377-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Colman v. Colman, 314 So. 2d 156, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201-02 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); cf. Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA…
-
Green v. Green, 442 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…court did not err in refusing to award the husband’s interest in the marital home to the wife, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), or in failing to reserve jurisdiction to consider a future award of alimony, Magarowicz v. Magarowicz, 429 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). AFFIRMED. THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Ottilia K. Nichols v. Nichols, 304 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Palmer v. Stanford B. Palmer, Jr., 338 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)