CHESTER D. MAHONEY, GUARDIAN OF LAUREEN M. GAY, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD GAY, 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.
Chester Mahoney, as guardian for his wife Laureen Gay, appealed a divorce decree denying permanent periodic alimony. The court affirmed the trial court's award of lump sum alimony but reversed and remanded on issues of medical expenses and living expenses incurred during the marriage and separation.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding lump sum alimony rather than permanent periodic alimony given the short-term nature of the marriage and the circumstances of both parties. However, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order the husband to pay the wife's hospital medical bills incurred during the marriage and to reimburse the guardian for the wife's reasonable living expenses during the separation.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying permanent periodic alimony in a short-term, childless marriage where both parties have significant handicaps, even…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to indemnify a spouse for reasonable medical expenses incurred during the marriage, especially when the spouse is impecunio…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This was a childless short-term marriage of three-and-a-half years, during sixteen months of which the parties were separated.”
Establishes the factual basis for the trial court's discretionary decision to award lump sum rather than 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 intelligenceThis was a short-term, childless marriage of three-and-a-half years, with the parties separated for sixteen months of that time. Both parties had sign…
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 Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal instituted by Chester Mahoney, as guardian for the wife Laureen Gay, from a final judgment of marriage dissolution. We affirm in part and reverse in part based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of permanent periodic alimony for the wife. This was a childless short-term marriage of three-and-a-half years, during sixteen months of which the parties were separated. Both parties have suffered from significant handicaps throughout their life, although the wife has most recently suffered a serious mental collapse and is unemployable. The husband Donald Gay has access to income from a modest family trust controlled by his father, but has no other appreciable assets and no prior employment history of any significance. Given these circumstances, the trial court’s decision to award lump sum alimony, rather than periodic permanent alimony, was a perfectly reasonable result; moreover, no challenge is made to the amount of lump sum alimony. See Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203, 206 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201-03 (Fla.1980); Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981). Second, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to indemnify the wife for reasonable medical expenses incurred during the marriage and to reimburse, in part, her guardian for her living expenses incurred during the parties’ separation. Given the wife’s admitted impecuniousness and complete mental collapse on the one hand and the husband’s ability to pay on the other, we think the husband should be required to pay for the medical bills incurred before divorce in the event the hospital where the wife was hospitalized obtains a judgment against the wife for such bills; for the same reasons, the husband should be required to pay for his wife’s reasonable living expenses during their separation which her guardian has paid. In each instance, we think that no reasonable trier of fact could have concluded otherwise. See Beers v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 468 So. 2d 995, 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA) (on rehearing), rev. dismissed, 476 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1985); see also Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Smith, 497 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla.1986).
The final judgment under review is affirmed except that the following aspects are reversed: the failure of the trial court (1) to order the husband to pay for the wife’s hospital bills incurred during the marriage at the Community Health Center in the event the said hospital obtains a judgment thereon against the wife, and (2) to reimburse the guardian of the wife for reasonable living expenses of the wife when the parties were separated during the marriage; the cause is therefore remanded to the trial court with directions to order the husband to pay for the above-stated two items.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campagna v. Cope, 971 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ines marital liabilities as all “liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them.” If the debt is marital, the Wife may seek distribution of that debt pursuant to section 61.075(1). See also Mahoney v. Gay, 516 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding “the trial court abused its discretion in failing to indemnify the wife for reasonable medical expenses incurred during the marriage”). The Wife’s payment of the Husband’s medical insurance premiums is more problemat…
-
Mosbarger v. Mosbarger, 547 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…the source of support obligation.” Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265, 268 (Fla.1986). Likewise, it may be appropriate for the husband to bear some of the wife's medical expenses or living expenses during their separation. Mahoney v. Gay, 516 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). [*192] We vacate the final judgment and remand to the trial court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing for purposes of revising, as appropriate, the equitable distribution, the alimony, and the award of attorney’s fees. Reversed…
-
Kunzweiler v. Kunzweiler, 698 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ence supports the trial court’s award and we should affirm. In my view, an award of rehabilitative alimony is justified in these circumstances, to give Katherine time to recover from the trauma of this divorce. See Kesling. See also Mahoney v. Gay, 516 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (award of lump sum alimony upheld even though parties had a childless, short-term marriage of three and one-half years, were separated during 16 months of that time, where wife had suffered from significant handicaps throughout he…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1983)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Smith, 497 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1986)
- Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Lolan Beers v. The Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 468 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)