CHARLES T. PROTOMASTER, III, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH PROTOMASTER, 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 Florida dissolution of marriage case, the husband appeals the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife. The appellate court affirms, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony and in requiring the husband to pay alimony directly to the wife rather than toward mortgage payments.
The trial court did not err. The award of permanent periodic alimony rather than rehabilitative alimony satisfies the reasonableness test applicable to discretionary judgments in dissolution cases, and section 61.08, Florida Statutes vests authority in the court, not the parties, to choose the method of alimony payment.
[1] A trial court's exercise of discretionary power in a dissolution of marriage action is subject to the test of reasonableness; if reasonable persons could differ as to the…
[2] Appellate review of a trial court's disposition of property and award of alimony requires determining whether the rules of law were applied correctly and whether the tria…
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“A trial court's exercise of its discretionary power in fashioning a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage action is subject only to the test of reasonableness, i.e., if reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable, and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for discretionary decisions in dissolution cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court dissolved the parties' marriage and made an equitable distribution of marital property and obligations. The wife was awarded the home …
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 Equitable Distribution Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The husband, Charles T. Protomaster, III, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm.
In addition to dissolving the parties’ marriage, the trial court made an equitable distribution of their property and ordered the husband to pay $150 per week permanent periodic alimony. The husband does not contest the division of the marital assets and obligations. He does, however, contend that the trial court erred by awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony rather than ordering him to pay, as rehabilitative alimony, the $584 total monthly payments on the first and second mortgages on the home awarded to the wife. We disagree.
A trial court's exercise of its discretionary power in fashioning a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage action is subject only to the test of reasonableness, i.e., if reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable, and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). In reviewing a trial court’s disposition of property and award of alimony, our responsibility is to determine from the admitted facts, or the facts taken most favorably to the prevailing party, whether the rules of law were applied correctly and whether the trial court’s discretionary authority was reasonably exercised under the test set forth in Canakaris. Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1985). We not only find that the rules of law were properly applied in this case but that the trial court’s award of permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony meets the Canakaris reasonableness test.
The trial court, furthermore, did not err in requiring the husband to make the alimony payments to the wife rather than allowing the husband to make mortgage payments directly to the holders of the mortgages. Authority to choose the method of payment of alimony was granted to the court, not the parties, by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (1985). Caidin v. Caidin, 367 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1980).
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pintado v. Katharine Leggett, 545 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…al, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, (Fla.1980),1 or on the cross-appeal as to the amount of the award of lump sum rehabilitative alimony, and the attorney fee award. Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985); Protomaster v. Protomaster, 506 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Wellman v. Wellman, 504 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Travieso v. Travieso, 447 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). However, we reverse the denial of the right of the custodial parent to relocate in Virginia. The record in this cause…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1985)
- Caidin v. Caidin, 367 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)