CARL D. GOSLINE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MICHELE GOSLINE, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a $50/month permanent alimony award because the wife's disposable income was equivalent to the husband's, holding that need and ability to pay remain the primary factors in alimony determinations.
Permanent alimony awards must be based on the receiving spouse's need and the paying spouse's ability to pay, not merely on income disparity, and a nominal award without clear reservation of jurisdiction is reversible.
[1] A trial court's award of permanent alimony must be supported by evidence of the receiving spouse's need and the paying spouse's ability to pay, and cannot rest solely on…
[2] When a trial court intends to reserve jurisdiction to award future alimony, such intention must be clearly demonstrated in the final judgment.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Need of the receiving spouse and the ability to pay of the paying spouse are still the primary elements to be considered when awarding permanent periodic alimony.”
Court restating the governing standard for alimony awards under Canakaris v. Canakaris.
In a divorce proceeding, the trial court awarded the wife $50 per month in permanent alimony, stating the award was based on income disparity between …
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 Income Disparity cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Chief Judge.
We reverse the award of permanent alimony of $50.00 per month to the wife which the trial court granted on the stated ground that “the disparity of incomes in the long run would make that reasonable.” Need of the receiving spouse and the ability to pay of the paying spouse are still the primary elements to be considered when awarding permanent periodic alimony. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). See also, Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The evidence reflects that the wife’s disposable income was roughly equivalent to that of the husband’s at the time of trial. It was suggested at oral argument that the “nominal” award may have represented the court’s attempt to reserve jurisdiction to make a future alimony award should circumstances warrant it, but if so, that intention does not appear in the record. The trial court has the power to reserve jurisdiction to make future alimony awards, but if that is intended, it should be clearly demonstrated in the final judgment. See Moore v. Moore, 401 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
We have considered the cross appeal and find no merit to cross-appellant’s contention. Whether a reconciliation had been effected between the parties so as to abrogate an earlier separation agreement was a question of fact under the evidence presented, and the trial court’s conclusion that such reconciliation had taken place is supported by the evidence, and is thus affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kimi Lea COX v. COX, 638 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ion of husband and wife and resumption of marital relations for any period of time will render a previous contract and settlement of property rights void.”); see also Delgado v. Cotta de Lopez, 546 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Gosline v. Gosline, 435 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Hudson v. Fatolitis, 289 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).2 Professor Clark suggests that the agreement should be valid, unless adherence to the agreement would be unconscionable. Clark, supra, at 440. There is authority for this vi…
-
Laurenzo v. Achilles Michael Laurenzo, 522 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ces in both her needs and her former husband’s ability to pay. The receiving spouse’s needs and the paying spouse’s ability to provide for those needs are still the most important factors in making an award of permanent alimony. Gosline v. Gosline, 435 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). See also Gallant v. Gallant, 468 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Because the former wife’s modestly stated needs are $1,700, and the husband’s substantial assets are sufficient to meet those needs, the modification, which is inad…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Campbell v. Chalermsri V. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Deortha A. Moore v. Moore, 401 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)