ELIZABETH I. ROY, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT C. ROY, JR., 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 trial court erred in reserving jurisdiction to award alimony in the future without a basis in the record for such a provision.
This case involves an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The specific issue on appeal is the trial court's reservation of jurisd…
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 Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
Only one point merits discussion and reversal. The trial court erred in providing that, “The court specifically reserves jurisdiction to make an award of alimony to the wife in the future should it become warranted.” We deem this error because there is no basis in the record which supports such a provision.
The question of whether to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future lies within the court’s discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Chayka v. Chayka, 361 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 1122 (FIa.1979); Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As we understand it, the rule, generally, is that where there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of alimony, the court should retain jurisdiction, Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Otherwise, the court should not retain jurisdiction. In other words, there must presently appear in the record foreseeable circumstances to take place in the future as would at that time support an award of alimony.
The criteria governing an award of alimony are well known. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Here, the governing circumstances of the parties are virtually the same in all material respects and there is no basis for preferring one spouse over the other as concerns alimony. See Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Moore v. Moore, 490 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
We reverse the provision in the judgment which reserves jurisdiction to award alimony to the wife in the future. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stock v. Stock, 693 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…termination at a later time. The question whether to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future lies within the court’s discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Strahan v. Strahan, 605 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Roy v. Roy, 522 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Here, the evidence shows a likelihood that there will be a change in circumstances that would enable the husband to meet his obligation to contribute to the wife’s support. That being the case, the trial court correctly reserved…
-
Zarycki-Weig v. Weig, 25 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…revisit the award, because the court’s finding that the husband did not have the present ability to pay implied the potential for future ability. A trial court’s decision regarding nominal alimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Roy v. Roy, 522 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (“whether to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future lies within the court’s discretion”). The two primary considerations in determining permanent periodic alimony are need and ability to pay. Lamont v. Lamont, 8…
-
Fleck v. Fleck, 958 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…nerally, is that where there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of alimony, the court should retain jurisdiction.’ ” Esteva v. Rodriguez, 913 So. 2d 684, 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Roy v. Roy, 522 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). Despite the parties’ substantially disparate earning capacities and the Wife’s need for alimony, it does not appear that the trial court considered the possibility of an award of nominal permanent alimony to the Wife. Accor…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Mirth K. Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Chayka v. Chayka, 361 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Moore v. Moore, 490 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)