GERALD C. BURCHARD, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA A. BURCHARD, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage after a 30-year marriage, the husband appealed challenging the trial judge's denial of permanent periodic alimony and attorney's fees, while the wife cross-appealed the award of $250,000 lump sum alimony. The appellate court affirmed the lump sum award and denial of periodic alimony at that time, but reversed because the judge failed to reserve jurisdiction for future modification.
The court affirmed the award of $250,000 lump sum alimony and the denial of permanent periodic alimony at that time, along with the refusal to require the wife to pay attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion. However, the court reversed because the trial judge abused discretion by failing to reserve jurisdiction for possible future award of permanent periodic alimony to the husband.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to reserve jurisdiction for a potential future award of permanent periodic alimony when the circumstances warrant such cons…
[2] A trial court retains jurisdiction to modify a final judgment and award periodic alimony only if jurisdiction is expressly reserved in the final judgment.
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“We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in awarding the husband $250,000 in lump sum alimony. Nor do we find an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in failing to award the husband permanent periodic alimony at this time, and in refusing to require the wife to contribute toward the husband's attorneys' fees and costs.”
Establishes the court's affirmance of the trial judge's lump sum award and denial of periodic 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 over 30 years, living in Wisconsin where the husband held high-level executive positions with companies owned by the wife…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, the husband challenges the trial judge’s failure to grant him permanent periodic alimony and an award of attorneys’ fees. By cross-appeal, the wife challenges the trial judge’s award to the husband of lump sum alimony in the sum of $250,000. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The parties were married for over thirty years at the time of their separation. During most of that time they lived in the State of Wisconsin where the husband was employed in high-level executive positions with companies owned by the wife and her family. His annual salary in those positions was substantial.
In 1980 the parties sold their stock in the family businesses and moved to Florida, where they had bought a home. The husband says that he thought they were retiring, since he had reached the age of fifty-five years. However, the wife says that they were to look for a business to buy which would afford them some income. In any event, the husband apparently left the marital home to live with his girlfriend and these dissolution proceedings were instituted by the wife.
The wife is independently wealthy and enjoys a substantial income. The husband points out that during the parties’ thirty-year marriage, they were supported by the husband’s salary, with the result that the wife was able to accumulate and reinvest her income.
The wife having the ability to pay alimony, the issue in this case is whether the husband is in need of alimony. The wife points out that the husband is presently receiving $60,000 a year under a consultant contract which expires December 1, 1985. After that time, the husband’s income, according to his testimony, will be reduced to approximately $35,000 per year or approximately $28,000 per year after taxes.
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in awarding the husband $250,000 in lump sum alimony. Nor do we find an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in failing to award the husband permanent periodic alimony at this time, and in refusing to require the wife to contribute toward the husband’s attorneys’ fees and costs.
.However, we feel that the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to reserve jurisdiction in the final judgment for a possible award of permanent periodic alimony to the husband in the future. Without such a reservation of jurisdiction, the trial judge will lose jurisdiction to modify the final judgment subsequently and award periodic alimony. Poe v. Poe, 263 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Upon a review of the record in this case, taking into consideration the wife’s means and the husband’s age and possible future needs, we feel that the trial judge in this case should have reserved jurisdiction to award permanent periodic alimony to the husband in the future if the husband can establish need and the wife then has the ability to pay.
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment with directions that the trial judge enter an amended final judgment reserving jurisdiction to subsequently award permanent periodic alimony. We affirm the final judgment in all other respects.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eckroade v. Eckroade, 570 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…arity in the parties’ earning abilities and resources. The trial court should have reserved jurisdiction to modify its alimony ruling if in the future the wife demonstrates a need and the husband has the ability to pay alimony. Burchard v. Burchard, 455 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Abernathy v. Abernathy, 494 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In his cross-appeal, the husband argues that the trial court erred in awarding the wife attorney’s fees without hearing testimony. Agreeing that the award of attorney's…
-
Pfaffko v. Pfaffko, 559 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…ose nonmarital assets. We find no abuse of discretion in this regard. As the trial court found, the wife had been able to accumulate nonmarital assets during the marriage while the parties had lived together in Gainesville. See Burchard v. Burchard, 455 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Also, as indicated above, the evidence was that those awards are needed by the husband to maintain the Valrico home, including its mortgage payments, and support the children of the marriage. See Pollack v. Pollack, 517 So.…
-
MacCONNEL v. MacCONNEL, 467 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…tive alimony which would result in the loss to her of any substantial income. On the other side of the coin, if job misfortune should befall the husband, he could seek relief at any time from burdensome alimony obligations. See Burchard v. Burchard, 455 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the wife’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and in the refusal to admit into evidence certain photographs depicting the wife’s contributions to the marriage.…
Authorities Cited
- POE v. POE, 263 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)