ALEXANDER C. ANGELIDES, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
DENISE ANGELIDES, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife and attorney's fees, rejecting the husband's argument that the wife's financial need must be demonstrated before alimony can be awarded.
The court held that current law does not restrict permanent periodic alimony to circumstances of demonstrated need; instead, alimony may be awarded to balance inequities resulting from the allocation of income-generating properties. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding alimony and attorney's fees based on the husband's superior financial ability.
[1] An appellate court reviews a trial court's disposition of property and award of alimony or support by determining whether the rules of law were applied correctly and whet…
[2] Permanent periodic alimony may be awarded to balance inequities resulting from the allocation of income-generating properties acquired during the marriage, not solely bas…
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“Current law, however, does not restrict an award of permanent periodic alimony to circumstances of demonstrated need.”
Establishes that financial need is not the exclusive basis for awarding permanent 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 twenty-one years. The trial court dissolved the marriage and awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony and attorney's f…
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 Scope Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
These consolidated appeals arise from a final judgment of dissolution dissolving the parties’ twenty-one-year marriage. The husband seeks to overturn the trial court’s award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife and two final judgments awarding the wife attorney’s fees and costs. The wife appeals two post-judgment orders. We affirm.
In Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court reiterated the scope of appellate review of a trial court’s disposition of property and alimony or support awards:
In reviewing the trial court’s disposition of property and award of alimony • and support, the appellate court’s responsibility is to determine from the admitted facts, or the facts taken most favorably to the prevailing party, (1) whether the rules of law were applied correctly and (2) whether the trial court’s discretionary authority was reasonably exercised under the test set forth in Canakaris.
The husband contends that the trial court’s award of permanent periodic alimony resulted from the incorrect application of a rule of law. According to the husband, the fact that the trial court’s disposition of the assets enables the wife to maintain herself in the style to which she has become accustomed precludes a showing of financial need. Current law, however, does not restrict an award of permanent periodic alimony to circumstances of demonstrated need.
While permanent periodic alimony is most commonly used to provide support, in limited circumstances its use may be appropriate to balance such inequities as might result from the allocation of income-generating properties acquired during the marriage.
Walter, at 539 [quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201-02 (Fla.1980) ]. Thus, the trial court, in the proper exercise of its discretion, may balance the parties’ assets and income. We therefore conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court acted reasonably, exercised its discretion properly, and applied correct principles of law in awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony. See Walter; Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985).
Insofar as the award of attorney’s fees to the wife is concerned, the law is clear that “[t]he award of attorney’s fees is a matter to be determined by the trial court.” Gary v. Gary, 467 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) [citing Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983)]. Furthermore, “[i]t is not necessary that one spouse be completely unable to pay attorney’s fees in order for the trial court to require the other spouse to pay these fees.” Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1205. Given the husband’s superior financial ability to secure and pay counsel, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the wife attorney’s fees. See Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1205.
Finding no merit in the wife’s appeal, we affirm the challenged post-judgment orders.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carroll v. Carroll, 471 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…oo, the principles of Canakaris shall provide guidance. See also Kane v. Kane, 469 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (husband should pay wife’s attorney’s fees in view of his superior financial position), and cases cited therein; Angelides v. Angelides, 466 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (trial court grant of attorney’s fees to wife proper given husband’s superior financial ability to secure and pay counsel); DiPrima v. DiPrima, 435 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (error not to award wife full payment of attorney’s…
-
Kelly v. Kelly, 557 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ate, 432 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). In addition, the lifestyle of the parties was clearly lavish and continues to be so as evidenced by the husband’s purchase of a Porsche automobile costing some $57,000. Furthermore, in Angelides v. Angelides, 466 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the court held an award of permanent alimony was appropriate even though distribution of the marital assets enabled the wife to maintain herself in a style to which she had become accustomed. Thus, we are unable to say that reaso…
-
Werner v. Werner, 587 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…r fees. Martinez-Cid v. Martinez-Cid, 559 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Pappas v. Pappas, 489 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Kane v. Kane, 469 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Angelides v. Angelides, 466 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We therefore reverse that portion of the amended final judgment. As for the husband’s cross-appeal challenging the alimony award, we conclude that the trial court’s intention in awarding permanent periodic alimony was to equaliz…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Doyle Edward Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1983)
- Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1985)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Politis v. First Regency Dev. Corp., 467 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Gary v. Gary, 467 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)