VICKI L. GLINSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICK X. GLINSKY, 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.
An ex-wife appeals from a divorce judgment challenging the trial court's awards of alimony and child support. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed most of the trial court's decisions but reversed the rehabilitative alimony award and the child support award, directing that the rehabilitative alimony be converted to permanent periodic alimony and that child support be redetermined upon the sale of the marital home.
The court affirmed the trial court's denials of permanent alimony, exclusive possession of the marital home, lump sum alimony, and pension/retirement benefit awards, but reversed the rehabilitative alimony award and converted it to permanent periodic alimony because the record demonstrated a need for permanent alimony to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. The court also reversed the child support award as clearly inadequate and directed redetermination upon sale of the marital home.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony may be converted to permanent periodic alimony when the record indicates a need for permanent support to maintain the standard of living establishe…
[2] A trial court must redetermine child support obligations when circumstances change, such as the sale of a marital home that frees up funds previously allocated to mortgag…
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“The record does not indicate a basis for an award for rehabilitation but does indicate a need for permanent, periodic alimony to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the 16-year marriage with the husband whose income is approximately $40,000 per year.”
Establishes the court's rationale for converting rehabilitative alimony to permanent periodic alimony based on the demonstrated need and marital standard of living.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVicki Glinsky, a 36-year-old woman, was divorced after a 16-year marriage to Patrick Glinsky, whose annual income was approximately $40,000. The trial…
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 Standard Of Living During Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A 36-year-old ex-wife appeals from the financial arrangements established by a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She contends that the trial court erred in awarding her no more than $75.00 per week rehabilitative alimony for one year, in awarding no permanent alimony, in failing to award to her all existing equity in, and exclusive, permanent possession of, the marital home, in failing to award to her lump sum alimony in the form of existing savings and checking account balances, in failing to make an award to her based upon the husband’s pension and retirement benefits and stock and insurance, in failing to require the husband to pay off the indebtedness on her car, and in awarding no more than $75.00 per week child support. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
With respect to her various contentions other than those concerning child support, we affirm, see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), except that we reverse the award of $75.00 per week rehabilitative alimony. We direct that upon remand that award be converted to permanent periodic alimony. The record does not indicate a basis for an award for rehabilitation but does indicate a need for permanent, periodic alimony to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the 16-year marriage with the husband whose income is approximately $40,000 per year. See Womble v. Womble, 521 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 528 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1988).
With respect to the child support, we conclude that the award is clearly inadequate, see section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1987), but take cognizance of the husband’s argument that the requirement of the final judgment that he make the mortgage payments on the marital home inhibits his ability to pay more child support. In light of other requirements of the final judgment that the wife, to whom primary custody of the child has been awarded, shall be permitted to live in the marital home for six months and that the home shall be placed on the market and sold, we direct that when the home is sold and therefore the wife and child may no longer live in it and the husband is no longer obligated to make mortgage payments, the trial court shall redetermine the amount of child support. If the home is not sold within six months and child support has therefore not been redetermined to provide an amount sufficient under the then existing circumstances for housing for the child, the trial court shall entertain a motion to extend the time during which the wife and child may live in the home.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Womble v. Womble, 521 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)