CALVIN FRANTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
AUDREY FRANTZ, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's award of lump sum alimony, permanent monthly alimony, and reservation of jurisdiction for future health insurance maintenance in a dissolution of marriage, holding that courts have discretion to fashion equitable property distributions and award alimony based on need and ability to pay.
Trial courts have the power to award lump sum alimony and permanent alimony based on need and ability to pay, and may reserve jurisdiction to require maintenance of health insurance as part of permanent alimony.
[1] Trial courts have discretion to fashion equitable property distributions through reciprocal lump sum awards in dissolution of marriage proceedings.
[2] Permanent alimony awards are based on the former spouse's established needs during the marriage and the obligor spouse's ability to provide necessary funds.
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court awarded the wife lump sum alimony in money and property, permanent alimony of $300 per month,…
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 Spousal Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband/appellant in this dissolution of marriage proceeding appeals from a final order of the trial court awarding the wife/appellee lump sum alimony in the form of money and property, permanent alimony in the amount of $300.00 per month, and reserving jurisdiction to require the husband to maintain a major medical/hospitalization insurance policy for the wife, should such become necessary.
We affirm upon the holding that 1). the trial court has the power to fashion, by reciprocal lump sum awards, an equitable distribution of the parties’ property. De Cenzo v. De Cenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Tronconi v. Tronconi, 425 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), 2). permanent alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties. The award in this case is based upon the needs of one spouse and the ability of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Nichols v. Nichols, 418 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), and 3). no abuse of discretion was shown in the reservation of jurisdiction to consider the wife’s future health care needs. Such an award can be considered as part of her permanent alimony award. Inglett v. Inglett, 439 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Cyphers v. Cyphers, 373 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Segal v. Segal, 353 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hildelisa Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 550 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…not. The two primary elements to be considered when determining permanent periodic alimony are the needs of one spouse for the funds and the ability of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1201; Frantz v. Frantz, 447 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Johnson v. Johnson, 418 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). In this ease, the reconsideration and redistribution of marital property we order will no doubt affect the permanent p…
-
Coll v. Coll, 507 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…uld be used to reduce the mortgages thereon. [*1144] Finally, we find the husband’s arguments going to the reciprocal awards of jointly held real property and proof of residency to be without merit. See Tronconi v. Tronconi, supra; Frantz v. Frantz, 447 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Swad v. Swad, 363 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Klarish v. Klarish, 296 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Therefore, the find judgment of dissolution appealed herein is hereby affirmed in all respects. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- DE Cenzo v. de Cenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Roffe v. Moises Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Tronconi v. Tronconi, 425 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Cooper v. Dade Cnty., 373 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Nichols v. Nichols, 418 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Segal v. Segal, 353 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Baptist Hosp. OF Miami & Corporate Grp. Serv. v. Porter, 439 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)