LAUREY LEE LAMORE, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
STEVEN ALLEN LAMORE, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 wife challenged the trial court's denial of permanent periodic alimony, lump sum alimony, attorney's fees, and the husband's payment of children's medical and dental insurance. The appellate court reversed on alimony, attorney's fees, and insurance coverage, finding the trial court abused its discretion given the husband's superior earning capacity as a bank vice president and the wife's limited employment prospects.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying permanent periodic alimony, failing to order the husband to pay attorney's fees, and failing to order the husband to maintain children's medical and dental insurance. The court reversed and remanded directing the wife's alimony award be made permanent periodic rather than rehabilitative, the husband be ordered to pay all of the wife's attorney's fees, and the husband be ordered to maintain the children's medical and dental insurance coverage.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to award permanent periodic alimony when a spouse is unemployed with limited job prospects and no evidence suggests they ca…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to order a husband to pay all of a wife's attorney's fees when the husband's earning ability is far superior to the wife's.
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 trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the wife permanent periodic alimony.”
Establishes the primary holding regarding the wife's alimony entitlement based on disparity in earning capacity and employment prospects.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband is a bank vice president with a flourishing career and superior earning ability. The wife is unemployed with limited employment prospects …
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 Earning Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The wife appeals the trial court’s denial of permanent periodic and lump sum alimony! payment by the husband of their children’s medical and dental insurance and all of her attorney’s fees, and granting the husband marital residence expense credits.
The husband is a bank vice president. His career will continue to flourish. The wife is unemployed. Her employment prospects are limited because of lack of education and job skills. There was no evidence that the wife would be able to support herself after a period of rehabilitation. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the wife permanent periodic alimony. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
The husband’s earning ability is far superior to the wife’s. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to order the husband to pay all of the wife’s attorney’s fees. Barry v. Barry, 511 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied, 523 So. 2d 576 (Fla.1988).
For thirty-five dollars a month the husband maintains insurance coverage for their children through his employer’s medical and dental group plan. The wife will have to pay higher non-group rates to get the same coverage. No reasonable person would differ as to the husband paying the children s medical and dental insurance. Canakaris.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to make the wife’s alimony award permanent periodic instead of rehabilitative. We further direct that the husband be ordered to maintain their children’s medical and dental insurance coverage and for him to pay all of the wife’s attorney’s fees. We affirm as to all other issues.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
ANSTEAD and GARRETT, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion, but would go further and direct, on remand, that some provision for lump sum alimony be made to insure the wife an equitable distribution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marcie Koscher v. Koscher, 201 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…d and ability to pay, a trial court may consider other factors, including the parties’ behaviors and earning potential. Zanone v. Clause, 848 So. 2d 1268, 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997)); LaMore v. LaMore, 553 So. 2d 1319, 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). “In deciding whether an award of attorney’s fees is justified, a trial court may impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed party.” Freilich, 897 So. 2d at 541 (quoting Smith v. Smith, 737 So. 2…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Booth v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Marianne v. Barry, 511 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)