MELINDA M. GARY, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
T. JACK GARY, III, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's alimony awards, finding they constituted an abuse of discretion. The court increased periodic alimony, eliminated rehabilitative alimony in favor of permanent alimony, and restructured the lump sum alimony award, while affirming the child support and marital domicile provisions.
The court affirmed the trial court's awards regarding child support and use of the marital domicile but reversed the alimony determinations. The wife is entitled to permanent periodic alimony of $2,000 per month rather than rehabilitative alimony, and the lump sum alimony should be paid at $15,000 per year without restriction to the husband's bonus and without early termination upon his death.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it awards rehabilitative alimony to a spouse with extremely limited earning capability and a prior high standard of living.
[2] Permanent periodic alimony awards must be consistent with the parties' prior standard of living, the recipient spouse's realistic needs, and the payor spouse's ability to…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The wife/appellant contends, and we agree, that she is entitled to a greater amount of periodic alimony than that originally awarded by the trial court and that such award should be permanent, rather than rehabilitative.”
Establishes the core holding that permanent alimony is appropriate rather than rehabilitative alimony.
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 a relatively long term and enjoyed a high standard of living. The husband earned a substantial income over a considerable…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
LEE, J. CAIL, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The issues are those common to contested domestic relations cases involving relatively long term marriages, and are presented in five points, as raised by the appellant and responded to by appellee, as follows:
Point I Permanent periodic alimony
Point II Rehabilitative alimony
Point III Lump sum alimony
Point IV Child support
Point V Use and occupancy of marital domicile
The trial court’s resolution and disposition of Points IV and V appear to fall well within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, and accordingly, we affirm. However, as to Points I, II and III, which may be dealt with together, we believe that the court’s determination constituted an abuse of discretion, and we therefore reverse. The wife/appellant contends, and we agree, that she is entitled to a greater amount of periodic alimony than that originally awarded by the trial court and that such award should be permanent, rather than rehabilitative. The record clearly reveals that the parties enjoyed a relatively high standard of living over a number of years. The husband/appellee earns, and for a considerable period of time past has earned, a substantial income. The professional training and experience, employment history and educational background of the wife/appellant are extremely limited as they relate to her earning capability. For these and other reasons disclosed by the evidence, we believe that the wife/appellant is not a proper subject for rehabilitative alimony; that the permanent alimony awarded to the wife is inconsistent with her prior standard of living, less than she realistically needs and also less than the husband/appellee is able to pay. In addition we believe the award of lump sum alimony should not be restricted to the husband’s bonus.
Accordingly, the final judgment herein appealed is modified as follows:
1. The award of rehabilitative alimony is vacated as of the date of this opinion.
2. The award of periodic alimony is increased to $2,000.00 per month as of the date of the opinion.
3. The award of lump sum alimony shall be paid at the rate of $15,000.00 per year until fully paid; it shall not be restricted to the husband’s annual bonus and it shall not terminate sooner in the event of the husband’s death.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.