NANCY MARSHALL DRISCOLL, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES HENRY DRISCOLL, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court awarded only temporary alimony (twelve monthly payments of $250) to a fifty-seven-year-old wife of a five-year marriage who gave up prior alimony rights to marry the defendant. The appellate court reversed, converting the temporary payments to permanent periodic alimony based on the wife's significantly diminished financial circumstances.
The court held that permanent periodic alimony is appropriate under the totality of circumstances even in a five-year marriage when the wife faces severe financial hardship. The twelve monthly $250 payments ordered by the trial court shall continue as permanent periodic alimony at $250 per month.
[1] Permanent periodic alimony may be awarded in a five-year marriage when the totality of the circumstances warrants it.
[2] A trial court's denial of permanent periodic alimony may be reversed when the dependent spouse is left in a "pathetic financial state" after the dissolution.
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“However, there is no ease that prohibits the award of permanent periodic alimony upon dissolution of a five year marriage and we certainly believe it is appropriate under the totality of the circumstances here.”
Establishes that Florida law permits permanent alimony even in short marriages when circumstances warrant it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNancy Marshall Driscoll, age fifty-seven, was married to James Henry Driscoll for five years with no children. Upon entering the marriage, she gave up…
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
At the conclusion of a dissolution proceeding, the trial court did not award any permanent periodic alimony. We reverse.
This is not an equitable distribution case for, indeed, there is little to distribute. Moreover, we are dealing with a marriage of only 5 years duration, no children, and each spouse having been married before. The wife is fifty-seven years old and upon entering into this union she gave up alimony payments due her from a previous marriage.
The dissolution now before us, has left the wife in a pathetic financial state. She has returned to work at the minimum wage and nets only $154 per week or some $8,000 per annum. The husband is in somewhat better shape, paying himself $450 per week “draw-down” out of his solely owned business which does, in addition, pay for some of his expenses.
The husband argues that this is not a long-term marriage and we do not disagree with that. However, there is no ease that prohibits the award of permanent periodic alimony upon dissolution of a five year marriage and we certainly believe it is appropriate under the totality of the circumstances here. Under the terms of the final judgment, the husband was ordered to make twelve $250 payments, one each month. We hold that these monthly payments shall continue as permanent periodic alimony, payable $250 per month, commencing August 15th, 1989.1
In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
GUNTHER, J., dissents with opinion.
. We assume the twelve monthly payments beginning March 1, 1988, and set forth in paragraph three of the final judgment, have by now been paid.
GUNTHER, Judge,
dissenting:
Although I agree that an award of permanent periodic alimony is proper in this case, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which specifies the exact amount of the award. In my view, the case should be reversed on the issue of permanent periodic alimony and remanded to the trial court to set the amount of the award. See Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); and Hubble v. Hubble, 214 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). In all other respects I agree with the majority and would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lakin v. Lakin, 901 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…imony is not appropriate in a short-term marriage; however, such an award may be warranted “where a genuine inequity is created by the failure to award permanent alimony.” Green v. Green, 672 So. 2d 49, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)1; Driscoll v. Driscoll, 547 So. 2d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (reversing trial court’s decision to deny permanent alimony to wife following a five-year marriage, where wife could only earn minimum wage and would be left “in a pathetic financial state”); see also Adinolfe v. Adinolfe,…
-
Echols v. Elswick, 638 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…duration of the marriage. Although the duration of a marriage is a proper consideration in determining whether to award alimony, six years is not such a short period as to necessarily require a denial of permanent alimony. See Driscoll v. Driscoll, 547 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); see also Simzer v. Simzer, 514 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Volosin v. Volosin, 382 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We therefore direct the trial court on remand to reconsider the appellee’s claim for periodic permanent alimon…
-
Siegel v. Siegel, 564 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…oan Ass’n. v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1976); Morand v. Stoneburner, 516 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1988). . See Pirino v. Pirino, 549 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). . Compare, e.g., Driscoll v. Driscoll, 547 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (court abused its discretion in failing to award fifty-seven year old wife permanent periodic alimony at conclusion of five year marriage where wife, by entering into the marriage, had given up alimony payments due from a previou…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hubble v. Hubble, 214 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Alexander v. Gateway Ins. Co., 361 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)