BRENDA J. WOMBLE, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE A. WOMBLE, 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.
Brenda Womble appeals a divorce judgment awarding her rehabilitative alimony instead of permanent alimony. The court reversed, holding that permanent periodic alimony was appropriate given her inability to achieve the marital standard of living even with full-time employment.
The court held that permanent periodic alimony was appropriate because even if employed full-time as a physical therapist, the wife's potential salary would be insufficient to support her at a standard approaching that which existed during the marriage, making rehabilitative alimony an improper remedy.
[1] A marriage of thirteen and one-half years is not of such a short duration as to create a presumption against the award of permanent alimony.
[2] The age and health of a spouse seeking alimony must be considered in light of all circumstances concerning the future earning capacity of both parties.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 person is not self-supporting simply because he or she has a job and income. The standard of living must be compared with the standard established during the course of the marriage.”
Establishes that self-support determination requires comparison to marital standard of living, not merely existence of employment
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 both in their forties with high school educations and had been married for over 20 years. The husband worked for Publix Supermarkets …
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 Age cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, F.D., Jr., Judge, Retired.
Appellant Brenda Womble appeals a final judgment of dissolution, contending that the court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony instead of permanent alimony. We agree.
The principal purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self-support of the receiving spouse, either through the redevelopment of previous skills or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Where appropriate, rehabilitative alimony may be converted to permanent periodic alimony.
Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties. The two primary elements to be considered when determining permanent periodic alimony are the needs of one spouse for the funds and the ability of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds. The criteria to be used in establishing this need include the parties’ earning ability, age, health, education, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed during its course and the value of the parties’ assets. Id.
In the present case, the parties were both in their forties and had a high school education. The husband, however, worked outside the home for Publix Supermarkets and now, after more than thirty years, earns over $50,000 per year and receives bonuses and additional benefits from Pub-lix. In contrast, the wife had worked part time about twenty years ago at a credit bureau but after their first child was born in 1967, the wife worked as a homemaker. Since 1980 the wife has worked as a physical therapist earning $4.00 per hour. There was no evidence of any potential for advancement in this field or the likelihood of increased earnings. There was also no evidence of any plan for rehabilitation or course of study for the wife.
This court has observed:
A person is not self-supporting simply because he or she has a job and income. The standard of living must be compared with the standard established during the course of the marriage. A divorced wife is entitled to live in a manner reasonably commensurate with the standard established by the husband during the course of a long term marriage. [Citation deleted]. A court must base an award of alimony to a wife upon the ability of her husband to pay that award and her financial needs in light of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage.
O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
It is true that the wife received $39,000 in cash but the income generated from this amount would not be sufficient to substantially raise the wife’s standard of living. Even if the wife were employed full time as a physical therapist, her potential salary does not appear sufficient to support her at the standard approaching that which existed during the marriage and accordingly the wife should have been awarded permanent periodic alimony. See Holcomb v. Holcomb, 505 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Laman v. Laman, 490 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Priede v. Priede, 474 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); DeCenzo v. DeCenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…oyment); Gregoire v. Gregoire, 615 So. 2d 694, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (affirming award of permanent alimony to 37-year-old wife of 11-year marriage producing two children even though wife was "qualified and able to earn a living"); Womble v. Womble, 521 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 528 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1988) (error not to award permanent periodic alimony where wife's potential salary from full-time employment as physical therapist did not "appear sufficient to support her at the standard appro…
-
Kanouse v. Kanouse, 549 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…acity for self-support of the receiving spouse, either through the redevelopment of previous skills or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).” Womble v. Womble, 521 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). However, as stated in O’Neal: A person is not self-supporting simply because he or she has a job and income. The standard of living must be compared with the standard established during the course of the marriage. A divor…
-
Askegard v. Askegard, 524 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…se of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self-support of the receiving spouse, either through the redevelopment of previous skills or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills.” Womble v. Womble, 521 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The instant record is devoid of evidence that, following the two-year rehabilitative period, the wife will have any skills or training which will make her self-supportin…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- DE Cenzo v. de Cenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Laman v. Laman, 490 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Priede v. Priede, 474 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Holcomb v. Holcomb, 505 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)