MARJORIE E. KOZELSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES KOZELSKI, 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.
Mrs. Kozelski appealed a divorce decree arguing that the trial court erred by failing to award her permanent periodic alimony and by awarding an inadequate amount of child support. The appellate court agreed, reversing those portions of the judgment and remanding for recalculation of alimony and child support.
The trial court erred by not awarding permanent periodic alimony to Mrs. Kozelski and by awarding inadequate child support of $37.00 per week. On remand, the trial court must reconsider the evidence regarding the husband's ability to pay and the wife's needs under Canakaris standards and award reasonable permanent periodic alimony and an appropriate amount of child support.
[1] A trial court errs by not awarding permanent periodic alimony when the parties' respective incomes and needs warrant such an award.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding an insufficient amount of child support given the facts and circumstances of the case.
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 intelligence“In light of the facts presented, including the parties' respective incomes and needs, and pursuant to the standards enunciated in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we hold that the trial court erred by not awarding permanent periodic alimony to Mrs. Kozelski.”
Establishes the appellate court's holding that permanent periodic alimony should have been awarded based on Canakaris standards.
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 married in December 1965 and had one child born in 1966. Mrs. Kozelski was primarily a housewife and mother who worked occasionally in her…
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Marjorie Kozelski appeals from the final order of the trial court dissolving the marriage between Marjorie and Charles Kozel-ski. We hold that the trial court erred by not awarding permanent periodic alimony to Mrs. Kozelski, and by awarding to her an insufficient amount of child support.
The parties were married in December 1965. One child was born of the marriage in 1966. The wife had worked in a factory prior to the marriage; after marriage, she was a housewife and mother, and also worked occasionally in the husband’s restaurants. Both parties had gainful employment after they moved from Ohio to Florida. At the time of the final hearing, the husband’s net weekly income was over $240.00, while the wife’s gross monthly income was approximately $312.00.
In the final judgment, the trial court awarded the exclusive use and possession of the marital residence to the wife until the emancipation of the parties’ minor child. Each party was ordered to pay one-half of the mortgage, taxes, insurance premiums, maintenance and upkeep of the residence. The court awarded to the wife a special equity in the residence in the amount of. $20,000.00. Other property was also distributed. Additionally, the trial court ordered Mr. Kozelski to pay $37.00 per week child support, attorney’s fees, and court costs.
Mrs. Kozelski has argued that the trial court should have awarded to her permanent periodic alimony. In light of the facts presented, including the parties’ respective incomes and needs, and pursuant to the standards enunciated in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we hold that the trial court erred by not awarding permanent periodic alimony to Mrs. Kozelski. On remand, the trial court is to reconsider the evidence, particularly relating to the ability of the husband to pay and the needs of the wife, and the standards provided in Canakaris, and shall award to Mrs. Kozelski a reasonable amount of permanent periodic alimony.
The former wife has also argued that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering only $37.00 per week child support. Again, considering all of the facts and circumstances of this case, we must agree that the amount of child support awarded is inadequate. Upon remand, the trial court shall reconsider the amount ordered as child support. See Peak v. Peak, 411 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Johnson v. Johnson, 367 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
We have considered the arguments presented by the wife challenging the amount awarded to her as attorney’s fees. It was within the trial court’s discretion to determine a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees based upon its “evaluation of all relevant factors.” Knott v. Knott, 395 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 411 So. 2d 383 (Fla.1981). We find that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in the award of attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…e and the fact that the husband does not have the present ability to pay the fee. It is within the trial court’s discretion to determine a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees based upon its evaluation of all relevant factors, Kozelski v. Kozelski, 448 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and such determination should not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Knott v. Knott, 395 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 383 (Fla.1981). The purpose of awarding attorneys’ fees in matrimonial litigat…
-
Coleen Rook v. Rook, 469 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ial parents are typically being called upon to pay in this area as child support, given a similar net income, I think the $130.00 per month award was facially insufficient. Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1984); Kozelski v. Kozelski, 448 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Peak v. Peak, 411 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). In addition, I question whether James’ obligations to his second family should be employed to reduce his obligations to his first child. Courts traditionally require that obligat…
-
Boylan v. Cooper, 482 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…2d 995 (Fla.3d DCA 1982), unlike the instant case, the mother’s income had decreased, whereas the husband’s had increased from approximately $26,000 to $35,000 per year. Cannon v. Morris, 407 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and Kozelski v. Kozelski, 448 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), also cited by the dissent, were not modification cases. Finally, the disparate burden of support referred to in the dissent is based upon a patently inflated expense affidavit submitted by the wife, and obviously rejected by the…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Peak v. Ewell A. Peak, 411 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Knott v. Knott, 395 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 367 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)