MARIANNE D. PIRINO, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND J. PIRINO, 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 appeal from a judgment dissolving a 28-year marriage, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of $500 per month permanent alimony to the former wife, finding it insufficient under the circumstances. The court remanded for reconsideration of alimony based on the wife's needs, the husband's superior income, and the parties' marital standard of living.
The appellate court held that the $500 per month permanent alimony award was insufficient and constituted an abuse of discretion. The court reversed the alimony award and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the award based on the wife's needs, the husband's superior ability to pay, and the standard of living the parties enjoyed during the marriage.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding insufficient permanent alimony when there is a great disparity in the parties' earnings and the recipient spouse cannot ma…
[2] A recipient spouse's ability to earn minimum wage does not, by itself, justify an alimony award that fails to account for the significant income difference between the pa…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Under the circumstances of this case we consider the award of permanent alimony to be insufficient and an abuse of discretion.”
The court's principal holding that the $500 monthly alimony award was inadequate
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 28 years. The wife, now 46 years old, had not been employed for many years. Early in the marriage, she worked part-time w…
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 Needs Of Spouse cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
In this appeal from a judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former wife raises several issues, only one of which has merit, viz, that the amount of permanent alimony awarded was too low under the circumstances of this case. In dissolving the 28 year marriage, the trial court awarded the sum of $500 per month as permanent alimony to the 46 year old wife, who had not been employed for many years, finding that the wife could be employed and receive at least minimum wage.
The wife had worked part time early in the marriage, while raising three children, now grown, to help put the husband through dental school and then worked part of the time in the husband’s dental office, without pay. During the year prior to the divorce, the husband earned approximately $112,000.1
Under the circumstances of this case we consider the award of permanent alimony to be insufficient and an abuse of discretion. Even if the wife were fully employed at the minimum wage, which the trial court considered she could earn, or at the rate of $7.00 per hour, which the husband’s expert testified the wife could expect to earn to begin with, there would be a great disparity in the parties' earnings. Even assuming the wife could gross approximately $14,500 per year (earning $7.00 per hour) and received permanent alimony of $6,000 per year, the husband’s income would still be almost four times the wife’s income. There is no practical way the wife could support herself on that income in a manner commensurate with the standard of living which the parties enjoyed during the marriage, where the mortgage payments, taxes and insurance on the marital home alone are almost $1,200 per month. We reject the husband’s argument that the assets the wife received in the distribution scheme make up for the great difference in income. Both parties shared in the equitable distribution of the assets, but even with the assets distributed to the wife, her economic situation is still so grossly inferior to that of the husband as to clearly demonstrate that the wife was shortchanged. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
We remand the case to the trial court with directions to reconsider the award of permanent periodic alimony and to award such sum as is in keeping with the wife’s needs and the husband’s superior ability to pay and the standard of living of the parties. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . The husband testified that this was an unusual year, involving a great amount of overtime. Nevertheless, his earnings for the three year period prior to that one averaged in excess of $74,000 per year.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…all other appellate courts) have been doing something similar for years under the concept that “the wife has been shortchanged.” Rey v. Rey, 598 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Decker v. Decker, 534 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Pirino v. Pirino, 525 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Overstreet v. Overstreet, 513 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Marsh v. Marsh, 489 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Tuller v. Tuller, 469 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Lynch v. Lynch, 437 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); DiPrima…
-
Pirino v. Pirino, 549 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…The judge may also consider the prior distribution of the assets between the parties and the wife’s ability to be wholly or partially self supporting. REVERSED and REMANDED. COBB, J., and SCHEB, J.M., Associate Judge, concur. . Pirino v. Pirino, 525 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). . It may not be true that "two can live cheaper than one”; but it is certainly true that two together can live cheaper than two apart. It is also true that many parties to a faltering marriage, for a variety of reasons, attempt…
-
Villaverde v. Villaverde, 547 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…atically from misfortune to prosperity or from prosperity to misfortune, and in viewing the totality of the circumstances, one spouse should not be ‘shortchanged.’” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla.1980); see also Pirino v. Pirino, 525 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Carr v. Carr, 522 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Halberg v. [*187] Halberg, 519 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The record indicates that the trial court refused to include the increase in value of the husband’s medical practice…
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)