OWEN GARFIELD EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
LIDA TORRES EDWARDS, 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 divorce appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony to the former wife in a short-term two-year marriage, finding no evidence that her earning ability was diminished by the marriage. The court affirmed all other aspects of the dissolution judgment and remanded for the trial court to recalculate the combined award to remove the rehabilitative alimony portion.
Yes, the trial court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony. On this record, there was utterly no evidence that the former wife needed assistance to regain the ability for self-support similar to that which previously existed or would have existed except for the marriage. The rehabilitative alimony award is reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to strike the rehabilitative alimony portion from the combined $6,800 award.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony is not warranted without evidence of a need to regain the ability for self-support.
[2] A short-term marriage with no evidence of diminished earning capacity does not support an award of rehabilitative alimony.
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“There is utterly no evidence adduced below that the former wife in this short-term, two-year marriage needed any assistance 'to regain the ability for self-support similar to that which previously existed or would have existed except for the marriage of the parties.'”
Establishes the legal standard for rehabilitative alimony and why it was improper in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOwen and Lida Edwards were divorced after a two-year marriage. The former wife was unemployed at the time of the final hearing, having been fired two …
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 Untimely Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former husband Owen Edwards appeals a final judgment of marriage dissolution entered below and attacks various awards made in the judgment.
We find merit in the former husband’s contention that the trial court erred in awarding the former wife Lida Edwards rehabilitative alimony because, on this record, there was utterly no evidence adduced below that the former wife in this short-term, two-year marriage needed any assistance “to regain the ability for self-support similar to that which previously existed or would have existed except for the marriage of the parties.” Murray v. Murray, 374 So. 2d 622, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); accord Fowler v. Fowler, 516 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Pierson v. Pierson, 462 So. 2d 613 (Fia. 2d DCA 1985); Poppe v. Poppe, 412 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
There is no evidence in this record that the former wife’s earning ability suffered during her marriage, as it is undisputed that she was able to work and entirely pay for her schooling both before and during the marriage. She clearly possesses earning abilities substantially equal to the husband although she was unemployed at the time of the final hearing, having been fired from her job two weeks earlier; without dispute, however, she plainly has the talent and training to obtain another similar-type job.
Moreover, the net worth of the parties is roughly equal. Given our conclusion that the entry of any rehabilitative alimony was error, the former wife’s cross appeal becomes moot.
We find no merit, however, in the balance of the former husband’s attack on the final judgment. Beyond that, and notwithstanding our prior contrary ruling on appel-lee’s motion to dismiss, we are compelled to dismiss the former husband’s appeal from the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife because the appeal therefrom was untimely filed. See Adler v. Adler, 365 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Simkins v. Simkins, 249 So. 2d 444, 445-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); cf. Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78, 79 (Fla.1976); Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. v. Bandes, 510 So. 2d 315, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Kucera v. Kucera, 330 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
The final judgment of marriage dissolution is therefore affirmed in all respects, save for the rehabilitative alimony award which is hereby reversed. Because we cannot determine how much of the $6,800 combined award for rehabilitative alimony, house improvement reimbursement, relocation expense reimbursement, and car payment reimbursement is attributable to rehabilitative alimony, we remand the cause to the trial court to strike from the aforesaid $6,800 award the amount the trial court intended as rehabilitative alimony. The appeal from the final judgment of attorney’s fees is dismissed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded; dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sutton v. Hart, 746 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…show that as a result of this short termed marriage, the former wife needed any assistance to regain the ability for self support similar to that which previously existed or would have existed but for the marriage of the parties. Edwards v. Edwards, 529 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (quoting Murray v. Murray, 374 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Hurwit v. Hurwit, 537 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); McDonald v. McDonald, 429 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). This short termed marriage obviously did not affect the…
-
Hurwit v. Handre Hurwit, 537 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…iage and 25 at the time of the divorce. The record contains evidence from which the trial court could have reasonably concluded, as it did, that Esther is able to live adequately without long-term support from her ex-husband. See Edwards v. Edwards, 529 So. 2d 777, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“[Tjhere was utterly no evidence adduced below that the former wife in this short-term, two-year marriage needed any assistance ‘to regain the ability for self-support similar to that which previously existed or would have e…
-
Edgington v. Edgington, 588 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…s, the trial court awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony for four years. An award of rehabilitative alimony must be supported by record evidence that the former spouse needed assistance to regain the ability for self-support. Edwards v. Edwards, 529 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Here, there was no record evidence to support the need for assistance. Therefore, an award of rehabilitative alimony was error. Since we conclude that any award of rehabilitative alimony was error, the wife’s cross-appeal is mo…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1976)
- Murray v. Murray, 374 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Poppe v. Poppe, 412 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Jones v. State, 412 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Kucera v. Kucera, 330 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Adler v. Etta Mae Adler and Joan Berk, 365 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Luisa Victoria Simkins v. Simkins, 249 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Fowler v. Fowler, 516 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. v. Jed Bandes, 510 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- John G.E. Williams v. Williams, 462 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)