LILLIAN WANDA GREEN, APPELLANT,
v.
W.J. GREEN, 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 trial court abused its discretion in awarding inadequate permanent periodic alimony, but affirmed the award of rehabilitative alimony.
The appellant contended that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $5.00 per week as permanent periodic alimony and $35.00 for 165 weeks a…
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 Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding her $5.00 per week as permanent periodic alimony and $35.00 for 165 weeks as rehabilitative alimony. We reverse and award of permanent periodic alimony and affirm the award of rehabilitative alimony.
The standard of review in dissolution cases is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The test to be applied by the appellate court is whether the trial court’s order is supported by competent evidence. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1983). We find that there is no competent evidence to support the trial court’s award of $5.00 per week as permanent periodic alimony, and we are certain that reasonable men could not differ as to the inadequacy of this award. However, we affirm the award of rehabilitative alimony as supported by the record.
Accordingly, we reverse the award of permanent periodic alimony and remand for reconsideration in view of evidence of the wife’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Welch v. Welch, 22 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…1st DCA 2009) (revised opinion on the appellee’s motion for rehearing). A ruling on a claim for permanent periodic alimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Alcantara v. Alcantara, 15 So. 3d 844, 845-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Green v. Green, 463 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In the section of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage specifically addressing “Alimony,” the court found the former husband earned approximately $140,000.00 per year and the former wife earned approximately $85,000.00…
-
DeSANTO v. DeSANTO, 621 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…in a light most favorable to the wife, we agree with the husband’s contention that the trial court’s determination of his ability to pay the amounts ordered by the trial court was not supported by substantial, competent evidence. See Green v. Green, 463 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Messal v. Messal, 424 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); DeHart v. DeHart, 360 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). It appears that the trial court based the amount of the awards- on past income despite uncontroverted evidence of the hu…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1983)