RITA GERALDINE BARKO, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR M. BARKO, 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.
The court held that while termination of alimony was supported by evidence, the trial court erred by failing to retain jurisdiction over alimony payments.
The former husband's financial circumstances were likely to improve in the future due to eligibility for social security benefits, in addition to his …
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 Alimony Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Rita Barko appeals from a final order which modified a final judgment of dissolution and terminated all alimony payments to her. The trial judge also denied her request to retain jurisdiction. The record contains sufficient evidence to support the termination of alimony under the present circumstances. However, it was error for the trial judge to fail to retain jurisdiction and on this point we reverse.
The question of reserving jurisdiction in a dissolution proceeding is within the trial court’s discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). But, if the facts or circumstances demonstrate that a change in circumstances in the future is likely that will affect either the need for, or ability to pay alimony, the court should retain jurisdiction. Brown; Hunt v. Hunt, 394 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Mumm v. Mumm, 353 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Roberts v. Roberts, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Reed v. Reed, 244 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
In this ease it was uncontroverted that the former husband will be eligible for social security benefits in the near future. Taken together with his pension income and the support provided him by his present wife, it appears appellee’s financial circumstances likely will improve with the addition of social security so as to enable him to pay alimony to appellant. Appellant had previously demonstrated and established a need for permanent alimony; and the record here did not show she no longer needs support from appellee, if he is able to pay it. Accordingly, the trial court’s failure to retain jurisdiction constitutes an abuse of discretion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, M., Associate Judge, concurs.
COBB, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anne Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…1976). The general rule is that the court should retain jurisdiction when there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of alimony. Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Barko v. Barko, 557 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The Fifth District not only eschews requisite nominal alimony awards, but also expresses a clear preference against them. See O’Neal v. O’Neal, 407 So. 2d 1011, 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (adopting its position in Moore v. M…
-
Larrauri v. Larrauri, 584 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting alimony to the wife. Second, we consider the court’s reservation of jurisdiction to award rehabilitative alimony. See Barko v. Barko, 557 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Under the facts of the case before us, the trial court may make a determination that the “[wjife is entitled to reasonable rehabilitative alimony ... to enable her to have the same [educational] opportunity as the [h]us-band.” B…
-
Herman v. Lakeisha Evette Scroggins Herman, 889 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…1976). The general rule is that the court should retain jurisdiction when there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of alimony. Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Barko v. Barko, 557 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We find no error in the trial court’s decision to reserve jurisdiction, but, because this case does not involve a potential claim for permanent alimony, jurisdiction should not have been reserved indefinitely. The parties…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Mirth K. Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Howard Banks v. Simpson, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Roberts v. Nona Lee Roberts, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Mumm v. Mumm, 353 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Bertone v. State, 394 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Thomas v. State, 244 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Reed v. Reed, 244 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)