TOMEK MIKLER

v.

AGATA MIKLER

BLACK, Judge. Tomek Mikler, the former husband, appeals from the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Agata Mikler, the former wife.

At the final hearing, the parties advised the trial court that they had entered into an agreement as to equitable distribution, leaving only the former wife's request for permanent periodic alimony at issue.

The trial court awarded the former wife $1,800 per month in alimony, and the former husband now challenges that determination. Because we agree with the former husband that competent substantial evidence does not support the trial court's award, we reverse and remand that part of the final judgment of dissolution awarding alimony. The parties were married in 1997 and separated in 2020; there were no minor children at the time of dissolution. The former husband filed the petition for dissolution in early 2021, and the final judgment was rendered in December 2021. In the final judgment, the court stated that it had considered the factors set forth in section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (2021).

The court then found that the parties had a long-term marriage; that the former wife had a need and the former husband had the ability to pay; that the former wife had a monthly surplus of $200, based on the former husband's demonstrative aid; that the former wife would have additional monthly income in the amount of $900 once she moved out of the rental apartment that she was awarded in the equitable distribution; and that her housing needs would include rent at somewhere between $1,700 and $2,000 monthly, which still fell below the parties' marital standard of living. The court ordered the former husband to pay $1,800 per month in alimony, commencing December 15, 2021. The former wife testified that she had looked into buying a house and that her realtor had advised that she would need about $60,000 for a down payment. The former wife had also looked into renting a home, and the rental prices ranged from $1,700 to over $2,000 per month. She testified that when the marital residence was sold, her share would be around $130,000; that her share would be used toward costs associated with her future residence; and that when she moved from the apartment, she would rent it and receive about $900 a month. "In the context of a long-term marriage, there is an initial presumption in favor of permanent periodic alimony." Ayra v. Ayra, 148 So. 3d 142, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Schlagel v. Schlagel,

973 So. 2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). "The purpose of permanent periodic alimony is to provide for the needs and necessities of life for a former spouse as they were established during the marriage of the parties." Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So. 2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 2000) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla. 1980)). "[I]t is often appropriate for alimony to be based on reasonable housing expenses." Suit v. Suit, 48 So. 3d 195, 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

However, "[c]urrent necessary support rather than the accumulation of capital is the purpose of permanent periodic alimony." Mallard, 771 So. 2d at 1140.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that permanent periodic alimony was appropriate. Cf. Ayra, 148 So. 3d at 143-44 ("A trial court's decision on whether permanent, periodic alimony is appropriate is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review." (citing Murray v. Murray, 598 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992))). The award of $1,800 per month, however, is not supported by competent substantial evidence. See Giles v. Giles, 298 So. 3d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Farley v. Farley, 858 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).

Although not as substantial as the alimony award that this court reversed in Suit, the trial court's award in this case is similarly based upon speculative testimony from the former wife as to her anticipated living situation. See 48 So. 3d at 197. The amount of the award is not supported by competent substantial evidence, but the parties' long-term marriage coupled with the former wife's potential future needs warrant at least nominal permanent alimony. See Ayra, 148 So. 3d at 144; see also Nourse v. Nourse, 948 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("[T]he historic incomes of the parties, the length of the marriage, and the wife's potential future needs require an award of at least a nominal amount of permanent alimony.").

Accordingly, we reverse that part of the final judgment of dissolution awarding the former wife alimony and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. MORRIS, C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.