SHERILAN RAE MOLER, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
GEORGE PRESTON MOLER, 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.
The court held that permanent periodic alimony was appropriate given the wife's circumstances and the nature of the marriage.
Following a dissolution, the trial court initially awarded permanent periodic alimony but later modified it to rehabilitative alimony. The wife, age 5…
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 Long-Term Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
After the entry of a final order of dissolution, the husband successfully argued on rehearing that permanent periodic alimony, in the sum of $1,500 per month, should not have been awarded. As a consequence, the permanent award was set aside and in place thereof rehabilitative alimony for four years, in the same amount, was substituted. The wife now appeals that exchange and we reverse.
This was a long term marriage which produced one child and during which the wife, age 52, did not work. She does not have a college degree, her typing skills are minimal, she has failed the examination to become a real estate salesperson and she suffers from high blood pressure and arthritis. The husband is a college graduate, considerably younger, healthy, and successful, earning $83,000 per year. This is a classic case in which to award permanent periodic alimony. See Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Accordingly, and without further discussion, we reverse the first amended final judgment with directions to reinstate the original one which granted permanent periodic alimony.
In all other respects, the cause is affirmed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
STONE, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weimer v. Weimer, 677 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ial ability to pay. The Wife’s poor health, combined with the fact that she had spent the bulk of this long-term marriage working at the garage, which was awarded to the Husband, warranted an award of permanent periodic alimony. See Moler v. Moler, 508 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). However, we find no abuse of discretion in the amount of alimony awarded. See Cosgrove v. Cosgrove, 491 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In her final point on appeal, the Wife argues that the award of twenty percent of her reas…
-
Allman v. Allman, 510 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ive alimony for five years. We reverse. A protracted discussion of the instant facts would add nothing to the body of marital law. Suffice it to say, this is another classic case in which permanent alimony should have been awarded. Moler v. Moler, 508 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Accordingly, we reverse the award of rehabilitative alimony with directions to make the same award permanent. In view of the fact that the rehabilitative alimony, now permanent, will not cease in five years, we also direct the…
-
Sauer v. Sauer, 527 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony and remand with direction to award and determine the amount of permanent alimony. See Moler v. Moler, 508 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also Womble v. Womble, 521 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). We find appellant’s other point to be without merit and affirm…
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
- Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Booth v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)