MARY D. GIBBONS, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCIS J. GIBBONS, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1990-05-02
No. 89-0680
Glickstein, J., Polen, J., Anstead, J.
560 So. 2d 392 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Florida appellate court affirmed denial of alimony to former wife in short marriage between elderly parties, but reversed denial of attorney's fees based on disparity in net worth and income.


Holding

Alimony was properly denied where the former wife was self-supporting before marriage, retained home improvements, and had higher post-marriage income, despite the parties' elevated lifestyle during courtship and marriage.


Headnotes

[1] Attorney's fees in dissolution proceedings must be awarded when the obligor spouse has substantially greater net worth and income than the obligor spouse, notwithstanding…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

A seventy-year-old woman and seventy-nine-year-old man separated after two years of courtship and three and one-half years of marriage. The former wif…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of alimony in the dissolution of this marriage between the seventy-nine-year-old husband and his seventy-year-old wife. The parties separated after two years of courtship and three and one-half years of marriage. The “high life” during the courtship and marriage about which the former wife testified, did not, to the trial court, warrant an alimony award and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The record reflects that the former wife retains $32,000 to $34,000 in improvements made to her home by the former husband during the marriage; that she enjoys a somewhat higher income than before the marriage; and that she was self-supporting before the marriage. The whirlwind lifestyle experienced during the parties’ courtship and marriage was as novel to the former husband as the former wife.

As for attorney’s fees, the net worth of the former husband being more than twice that of the former wife and his income being three times that of the former wife, we reverse denial of same by the trial court and remand with direction to make an appropriate award. Finally, we affirm the denial of costs for the services of the accountant, which the trial court found to be unnecessary, but reverse denial of any of the former wife’s remaining costs.

GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

Other
ANSTEAD, Judge,

ANSTEAD, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I would affirm all of the trial court’s rulings challenged on appeal.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Hallman v. Hallman, 575 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
    …assets is one of the factors to [*744] be taken into account in determining whether an award of fees is appropriate. Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Johnson v. Johnson, 560 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Gibbons v. Gibbons, 560 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Inclusion of the fees award may be necessary in this case to help justify the disparity in distribution but it doesn’t help enough to outweigh the mischief it will cause. I would reverse. W. SHARP, J., concurs. .According to t…
  • Gove v. Gove, 579 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
    …ly superior financial position to that of the wife. We hold that the trial judge abused his discretion when he failed to order the husband to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla.1980); Gibson v. Gibson, 560 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The purpose of permanent periodic alimony is to provide for the needs and necessities of life to a former spouse as established by the marriage of the parties. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1201. The primary considerations for this…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw