KATHLEEN T. MALOY, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS K. MALOY, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony to the wife, holding that permanent alimony was appropriate where there was no evidence the wife could achieve financial self-sufficiency within the rehabilitation period. The court found the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard by awarding time-limited alimony despite the wife's inability to redevelop capacity for self-support.
The court held that permanent alimony was appropriate because there was no evidence the wife could be rehabilitated to greater financial success or develop capacity for full self-support and achieve some semblance of the marital lifestyle within the rehabilitative period, and therefore the trial court applied an incorrect rule of law.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony is inappropriate when there is no evidence that a spouse can achieve greater financial success or full self-support within the award period.
[2] A court errs in awarding rehabilitative alimony if there is no evidence that the recipient spouse can develop or redevelop the capacity for full self-support and achieve…
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“There was no evidence that the wife would or could be rehabilitated to greater financial success within the two-year period of the rehabilitative alimony award.”
Establishes the factual predicate for reversing the rehabilitative alimony award
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 twenty-three years. The wife was a homemaker responsible for primary childcare of four children, never employed outside t…
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 Standard Of Living During Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
In this appeal from the final judgment which dissolved the marriage of the parties, the only question raised is whether the trial court erred in awarding the wife rehabilitative alimony instead of permanent alimony as she requested. We agree with the wife that the periodic payments of alimony should have been made permanent. Therefore, we reverse and order the judgment amended to that extent.
During the twenty-three years’ marriage, the wife was the homemaker and was responsible for the primary care of the parties’ four children. She was not employed outside the home. She never obtained a high school diploma and she has no special employment skills beyond those she has recently developed in her job as a waitress and hostess. At that job she earns a weekly salary of approximately $180. She has several health problems. While those problems do not presently impair her capacity to work as a waitress, it is apparent that there is no better job opportunity to which she can aspire nor other skill she can be trained to perform.
The husband is in good health, has some college training, holds a license as a real estate salesman and manages a real estate firm where he earns $24,000 a year over and above expenses allowed by the firm. He earned over twice that amount in the same type business in New York before recently moving to Florida. During their entire married life in New York, the parties enjoyed a lifestyle of comfort which can best be described as well above average.
It is clear that the wife is unable to fully support herself on her salary and that the trial judge correctly ordered the weekly alimony payments in the amount of $75 to be made by the husband. On appeal the husband does not complain that the wife does not need the amount of alimony ordered, nor does he complain that he is unable to make the payments. He contends, rather, that the trial judge was correct in refusing to make the alimony payments permanent as requested by the wife.
There was no evidence that the wife would or could be rehabilitated to greater financial success within the two-year period of the rehabilitative alimony award. Patrick v. Patrick, 399 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). There was no evidence that she could develop anew or redevelop a capacity for full self-support and achieve some semblance of the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage. Hair v. Hair, 402 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Reback v. Reback, 296 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Because that is so, we find the trial court applied an incorrect rule of law. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Accordingly, we reverse and direct that the provision for weekly payments of periodic alimony be made permanent rather than rehabilitative. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Pace v. Pace, 427 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Messer v. Messer, 342 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holcomb v. Holcomb, 505 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ilitative alimony be converted to permanent alimony, and the amount of the award be reviewed by the trial judge. See also Allison v. Allison, 491 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), Condren v. Condren, 475 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Maloy v. Maloy, 431 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), Neumann v. Neumann, 413 So. 2d 1203 (Fla 3rd DCA 1982), G’Sell v. G’Sell, 390 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The wife next argues that, because she has lived in the marital home for thirteen years and was allegedly shortchange…
-
Filkins v. Filkins, 458 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…vided equally between the parties. An award of rehabilitative alimony to a party presupposes the actual or potential capacity for self-support within the prescribed period commensurate with the party’s accustomed standard of living. Maloy v. Maloy, 431 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Holland v. Holland, 406 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Burke v. Burke, 401 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); and Messer v. Messer, 342 So. 2d 1076 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Without th…
-
Hatcher v. Hatcher, 533 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…he capacity for self-support. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue and remand for entry of an order converting the award of temporary rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony. Filkins v. Filkins, 458 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Malay v. Maloy, 431 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); St. Laurent v. St Laurent, 417 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We find no error as to the remaining issues. The trial court was cognizant of the value of the husband’s pensio…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Reback v. Reback, 296 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Hair v. Hair, 402 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Messer v. Addison L. Messer, 342 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Patrick v. Patrick, 399 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 427 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)