CAROL ANN FRIES, APPELLANT,
v.
RODNEY LEWIS FRIES, 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.
The court held that the wife should receive permanent periodic alimony and that the provision for sale of the marital home should be removed from the final judgment.
The parties were married for thirty-six years. The wife, age 57, has health issues and works part-time, while the husband, age 55, has capacity for re…
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 Partition cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The wife in this dissolution of marriage proceeding appeals the final judgment and poses five points for consideration. We have seriously addressed all of said points but find error presented in only two of them.
The wife, age 57, and the husband, age 55, were married for thirty-six years. All of their children are adults, but one is handicapped. The wife worked a good portion of her married life, but because of a slight stroke and other physical ailments she was required to give up her position as a computer operator with a bank. At the time of the dissolution of marriage she was working part time as a “Kelly girl” at $3.25 per hour. The husband had held a responsible position with a boat company and, although he was no longer employed there, he has the capacity for quite remunerative employment. The husband inherited an interest in a substantial farm in Wisconsin. Among his assets are an undivided one-half interest in the marital domicile and the interest in the Wisconsin farm.
The wife contends she should have been awarded permanent instead of rehabilitative alimony and we agree. The length of the marriage, her age, and the condition of her health convince us that rehabilitative alimony is not appropriate here. The only other point that we find has merit is the wife’s argument that the final judgment should not, have provided that the court will order a sale of the marital home upon petition of either party, because the right to partition was not pleaded.
Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed in all respects except that on remand the trial court is directed to modify the final judgment by making the alimony award permanent periodic alimony and eliminating that part of ¶ 3 providing for sale of the marital home.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED, with directions.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Louriese Murbach v. Murbach, 490 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ually between the parties. A court cannot order partition of property incident to a dissolution of marriage where, as here, neither party filed the requisite pleadings for partition. Wiley v. Wiley, 485 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Fries v. Fries, 445 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Sanders v. Sanders, 351 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Rankin v. Rankin, 258 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). We, therefore, strike the first two sentences of the foregoing paragraph. Since the parties now own the home as tenants…