ROBERT L. PIERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBRA FULFORD PIERSON, 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.
Robert Pierson appealed a divorce judgment that awarded his ex-wife one year of rehabilitative alimony at $60 per week. The appellate court reversed the alimony award, finding the trial court failed to establish that the ex-wife needed rehabilitation or that a single college course would develop self-support capacity, particularly where she remained employed throughout the short marriage.
The court held that the trial court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony because there was insufficient evidence that appellee needed rehabilitation or that the single college course would assist her in redeveloping or improving her employment position, which remained substantially unchanged before, during, and after the marriage.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony is intended to enable a spouse to develop the capacity for self-support through retraining or redeveloping skills.
[2] Rehabilitative alimony is not warranted when a spouse is already employed and earning a sufficient salary to support themselves.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 principle purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self-support in the receiving spouse, through redeveloping previous skills or providing new training to develop potential supportive skills.”
Establishes the legal standard for rehabilitative alimony that the trial court must satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for less than nine months. Appellee Debra was employed as a bartender before, during, and after the marriage, earning the sam…
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 Capacity For Self-Support cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
Appellant, Robert L. Pierson, has appealed from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We find that the trial court erred in awarding to appellee, Debra Ful-ford Pierson, one year of rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $60 per week, but affirm the judgment in all other respects.
The principle purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self-support in the receiving spouse, through redeveloping previous skills or providing new training to develop potential supportive skills. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
In this case the parties lived together less than nine months. Before, during, and after the marriage, appellee was employed as a bartender and was earning at least the same salary that she had earned prior to the marriage. Appellee and her child by a former marriage had lived with appellee’s father before her marriage to appellant, and they returned to his home after the parties separated. Prior to the entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, appellee enrolled in one course at a local college. The record reflects neither the nature of the course nor the purpose for which it was taken.1 There was no evidence that the course would assist appellee in redeveloping or improving the position she held prior to, during, and after the marriage. Furthermore, nothing in the record reflects that appellee incurred relocation expenses in moving back to her father’s home. The trial court therefore erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony. Canakaris; see also, McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
We, accordingly, remand this case to the trial court with directions to strike that portion of the final judgment awarding rehabilitative alimony to the appellee. We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
OTT, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. . A transcript of the proceedings, in the trial court was not furnished to this court. The statement of evidence submitted by the parties fails to reflect the parties' age, educational background or their physical and emotional condition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sever v. Sever, 467 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ve alimony is used to establish the capacity for self-support in the receiving spouse, either through the redevelopment of previous skills, or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills. Canakaris; Pierson v. Pierson, 462 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We find nothing in the record to substantiate the trial court’s finding that the wife can be rehabilitated. The wife in this case does not have a job or any income. Even though she has a background in ladies’ merchandizing, she h…
-
Edwards v. Lida Torres Edwards, 529 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…imilar to that which previously existed or would have existed except for the marriage of the parties.” Murray v. Murray, 374 So. 2d 622, [*778] 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); accord Fowler v. Fowler, 516 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Pierson v. Pierson, 462 So. 2d 613 (Fia. 2d DCA 1985); Poppe v. Poppe, 412 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). There is no evidence in this record that the former wife’s earning ability suffered during her marriage, as it is undisputed that she was able to work and entirely pay for her sch…
-
Owens v. Owens, 559 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…he law precludes the award of rehabilitative alimony and requires or treats an award as one for permanent periodic alimony for support, usually without limitation of time. E.g. Evans v. Evans, 507 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Pierson v. Pierson, 462 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Elliott v. Elliott, 458 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666; McNaughten v. McNaughten, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The record in the instant case indicates that the appellee had worked in…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Vernell v. Edge, Inc., 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Budagail S. Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)