JONI TATE, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE THOMAS TATE, 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 dissolution of marriage case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed portions of the final judgment regarding alimony and the marital home sale, holding that the wife is entitled to permanent periodic alimony of $580 per month rather than temporary alimony, and clarifying that she must be reimbursed for half of the mortgage payments she makes pending the sale of the marital property.
The court held that the wife is entitled to an award of permanent periodic alimony in the sum of $580 per month rather than a temporary award, based on the twenty-five year marriage, minor child in her care, unemployment, substantial needs, and sharp disparity in education and earning capacity. The court also held that the wife must be explicitly entitled to reimbursement of one-half of mortgage payments made by her pending the sale of the marital property.
[1] A court may award permanent periodic alimony when there is a significant disparity in the parties' education, income, and earning capacity in a dissolution of marriage ca…
[2] A trial court's award of alimony may be adjusted when it is not intended to be permanent, but the circumstances suggest a permanent award is warranted.
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“Due to the sharp disparity between the parties in education, income, and earning capacity, we are of the opinion that the wife is entitled to an award of permanent periodic alimony in the sum of $580.00 per month, rather than a temporary award of such amount.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding permanent versus temporary alimony based on disparity in education, income, and earning capacity.
Previewing 1 of 2 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-five years and had two children, one a minor residing with the wife. The wife is unemployed with substantial needs…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a dissolution of marriage case which we summarily address inasmuch as there is nothing novel to be found in the facts or law involved.
Using the guidelines found in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980) and McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DC A 1977) we reverse or adjust these portions of the final judgment which provided:
4. The husband be and he hereby is enjoined and required to pay the wife periodic alimony in the amount of $580.00 per month, the first payment to be paid on June 1, 1982 and like payments to be paid on the same day of each month until the court may enter an order terminating those payments. It is not the court’s intention that the wife have permanent periodic alimony. After the marital homeplace is sold and the amount of proceeds realized by the wife is known, the court will consider the husband’s application that the alimony be terminated and will terminate it or fix the period during which it is payable. That application may be made on motion after notice.
9. The wife be and she hereby is awarded exclusive possession of the marital homeplace and the lot adjacent to it, more particularly described as:
Lot 66, Island Estates, Addition No. 1, Palm Beach County, Florida Public Records,
and
Lot 67, Island Estates, Addition No. 1, Palm Beach County, Florida Public Records.
The parties shall expose the marital homeplace and the lot adjacent to it for sale at the earliest possible time. They shall do all things reasonably required to effect the sale of it at some fair price. Pending the sale, the wife shall pay all of the mortgage payments. The unpaid mortgage balances on the 1979 and 1980 Monte Carlo automobiles as they now are shall be reimbursed to the husband and paid to the mortgagees from the net sales proceeds and the balance of the net sales proceeds shall be equally divided. Net sales proceeds means the amount realized after payment of all costs and expenses of sale, excluding the parties’ attorneys’ fees involved with the sale which they shall pay themselves.
This is a twenty-five year marriage which produced two children, one of whom is a minor residing with the wife. The wife is unemployed with substantial needs. Due to the sharp disparity between the parties in education, income, and earning capacity, we are of the opinion that the wife is entitled to an award of permanent periodic alimony in the sum of $580.00 per month, rather than a temporary award of such amount. We remand with instructions to make the award permanent upon authority of King v. King, 420 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Canakaris, supra; Tolin v. Tolin, 401 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); McAllister, supra.
With reference to paragraph 9 of the final judgment which provided that “Pending the sale, the wife shall pay all of the mortgage payments,” husband’s counsel conceded before us that upon sale of the marital homeplace and adjoining lot the wife would be entitled to reimbursement of one half of such mortgage payments made by her. Upon remand, we instruct that such reimbursement requirement be made explicit in the final judgment.
The remaining points raised by the wife require no comment as they are without merit, moot, or constitute harmless error. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ital domicile for payments she made for obligations of the property during the time of her possession. Whiteley v. Whiteley, 329 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). See also Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 487 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Tate v. Tate, 432 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981); Guthrie v. Guthrie, 315 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Hendricks v. Hendricks, 312 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). This leads us to the…
-
Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…and other factors, permanent alimony should have been awarded. Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1985) (permanent periodic alimony proper where husband owned substantial property and wife could expect to earn only minimal salary); Tate v. Tate, 432 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (wife entitled to permanent periodic alimony in light of sharp disparity in parties’ education, income and earning capacity); King v. King, 420 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (trial court erred in failing to award permanent perio…
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…dgment requires only one spouse to make the mortgage payments until such time as the house is sold and is silent as to whether the spouse who pays the mortgage is to receive credit, the right to a credit arises by operation of law. Cf. Tate v. Tate, 432 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (no dispute that spouse entitled to credit; however, court remanded to have right to credit made explicit in judgment). Though it was not necessary for the trial court to do so, it did not err in clarifying what was implicit in t…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Tolin v. Tolin, 401 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- King v. King, 420 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)