LINNA FONG WING, APPELLANT,
v.
SHELBY JOE WING, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We approve the trial court’s equitable distribution of the parties’ assets upon the dissolution of their 20-year marriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We also approve the child support award. However, we disapprove the denial of permanent alimony for Mrs. Wing. The length of the marriage, the needs of the wife, and the comparative opportunities for career advancement entitle Mrs. Wing to an award of permanent alimony. See Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Recognizing that Mr. Wing’s temporarily reduced income renders an additional award impractical at the present time, we remand for the entry of a nominal award of permanent alimony which would permit Mrs. Wing to apply for modification, when appropriate.
For these reasons, we remand the cause to the trial court for modification of the final judgment in accord with this opinion, and, upon modification, we affirm the final judgment of dissolution.
HUBBART, Judge
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent. I would affirm the final judgment in all respects as being amply supported by substantial, competent evidence. In particular, I see no abuse of discretion in denying the wife herein permanent, periodic alimony when the record plainly establishes, without dispute, that the husband is financially unable to respond to such an award. Nor am I able to say, as does the court, that the trial court acted arbitrarily in failing to make a nominal and obviously inadequate alimony award for the wife in hopes that the defendant’s admittedly bleak financial picture might improve in the future. So far as I am aware, the law does not engage in such speculation in measuring the proper exercise of the trial court’s admittedly broad discretion in cases of this nature. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); McDonald v. McDonald, 368 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1979); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976); Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blanchard v. Maran L. Blanchard, 793 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…arriage, the moderate marital assets, and the wife’s needs, however, required an award of a nominal amount of permanent alimony to permit the wife to pursue a future increase should the husband’s full earning potential materialize. See Wing v. Wing, 429 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Moore v. Moore, 401 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See also Stock v. Stock, 693 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the wife a nominal amount of pe…
-
Mirth K. Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…imony. In order to secure a reinstatement of alimony, after a modification terminating it, the burden would then fall upon the party seeking alimony to establish the foundation for such an award in a later modification proceeding. See, Wing v. Wing, 429 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983). The husband’s acceptance of an option to purchase 51,000 shares of stock in the company that employs him (a company he formed, but the stock in which is wholly owned by the female friend with whom he lives) can be interpre…
-
Messina v. Messina, 676 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…994); Edwards v. Sanders, 622 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 552 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Kernan v. Kernan, 495 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Shapiro v. Shapiro, 452 So. 2d 81 [*487] (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Wing v. Wing, 429 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983); Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Bailey v. Bailey, 300 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Traylor v. Traylor, 214 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). Under the eases, retirement is just the sort of future contin…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Wilmer H. McDONALD v. McDONALD, 368 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1979)
- Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Alexander v. Gateway Ins. Co., 361 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)