DAVID R. WISMAR, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY E. WISMAR, 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 divorce case, the appellate court reversed a permanent alimony award of $58 per week to a 32-year-old wife with a master's degree earning $19,000 annually, finding no evidence of permanent inability to become self-sustaining. The court held that permanent alimony awards require a showing of permanent inability to become self-supporting and cannot be used merely to equalize the parties' standards of living.
The court held that the award of permanent alimony was an abuse of discretion because the evidence did not reflect a permanent inability on the part of the wife to become self-sustaining. An award of permanent alimony without evidence of permanent inability to become self-supporting, issued merely to provide a higher standard of living at the husband's expense, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
[1] An award of permanent alimony is improper where the evidence does not reflect a permanent inability on the part of the recipient to become self-sustaining.
[2] An award of permanent alimony is an abuse of discretion when it is granted without justification in the record, other than to provide one party with a higher standard of…
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“An award of permanent alimony is improper where the evidence does not reflect a permanent inability on the part of the wife to become self-sustaining.”
Establishes the legal standard requiring proof of permanent inability to become self-supporting for permanent alimony awards
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 married for eight years and had two minor children residing with the husband six out of every fourteen days. The husband, an accounta…
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 Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
In this case the parties were married for eight years and had two minor children. The wife was awarded $58.00 per week as permanent, periodic alimony and $90.00 per week as child support for the children. The children reside with the husband six out of every fourteen days. The wife also received one-half of the present value of the husband’s pension benefits and leasing partnerships, as well as one-half of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home.
The appellant husband contends the award of permanent, periodic alimony in this case was an abuse of discretion.1 An award of permanent alimony is improper where the evidence does not reflect a permanent inability on the part of the wife to become self-sustaining. Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), petition for review dismissed, 453 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1984). In the instant case, the husband is employed as an accountant, earning a salary of approximately $30,000 per year. The wife, age 32, has a master of science degree in management, and works as the editor of the Rollins College Alumni Magazine, earning approximately $19,000 per year. The wife’s education and earning ability show that she has the capacity for self-support, and the parties are in similar financial positions. See Evans v. Evans, 443 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (award of permanent alimony to the wife, who was 35 years of age, in good health, and had present earning capacity between $12,500 and $18,000 per year was an abuse of discretion, even though the husband was earning at least $30,000 annually).
The award of permanent alimony in this case, without any basis or justification in the record, except as a means to provide the wife with a higher standard of living at the husband’s expense, constitutes an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the permanent alimony award.
Since the wife had a substantially equal ability to pay attorney fees, we also reverse the trial court’s award in that respect. See Bloodwell v. Bloodwell, 508 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We otherwise affirm the trial court’s apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the parties.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
SHARP, C.J., dissents without opinion.
. The wife admits that rehabilitative alimony would not be appropriate, since further training or education is not necessary or desired.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…d be justified in any case in which the parties have been married long enough for some trial judge to classify the marriage as "long term.” Eight years was held long enough to justify permanent, periodic alimony by a trial judge in Wismar v. Wismar, 522 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). This makes alimony nothing less than an annuity giving one spouse an interest in the other spouse’s income up to the amount necessary to assure equal incomes. This is not the traditional concept of alimony nor is it consistent w…
-
Myron Lee Murray v. Murray, 598 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…od health, and had worked at the same job for approximately twelve years. Based upon this evidence, the trial court erred by finding that the appellee could not be self supporting and awarding her permanent periodic alimony. Fulks; Wismar v. Wismar, 522 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Evans v. Evans, 443 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), petition for review dismissed, 453 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1984). The fact that the appellant has more income than the appell…
-
Siegel v. Siegel, 564 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…permanent periodic alimony error in ten year marriage where record showed wife, a thirty-four year old Thai native had clerical skills, spoke several languages and possessed ultimate capability to become self-supporting). See also Wismar v. Wismar, 522 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (award of permanent periodic alimony to thirty-two year old wife upon dissolution of eight year marriage error where wife’s education and earning ability showed she had capacity for self-support, parties were in similar financial…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell v. Chalermsri V. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Evans v. Evans, 443 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Bloodwell v. Bloodwell, 508 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)