ANA R. BOVET, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CLAUDE J.J. BOVET, 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.
Ana Bovet appeals the trial court's award of $16,500 in lump-sum rehabilitative alimony and its failure to retain jurisdiction for future modifications following a 26-year marriage. The appellate court affirms the amount of alimony but reverses the conversion to a lump sum and the failure to reserve jurisdiction, finding an abuse of discretion given the wife's health problems and rehabilitation needs.
The court affirmed the amount of alimony awarded as within the trial court's sound discretion, but reversed the conversion of periodic payments to a lump sum and the failure to reserve jurisdiction. The court found an abuse of discretion in both the sua sponte conversion and the failure to reserve jurisdiction given the wife's health problems and rehabilitation needs.
[1] The amount of alimony awarded is within the sound discretion of the court to ensure equity and justice.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by sua sponte converting periodic rehabilitative alimony into a lump sum payment, thereby foreclosing access to modification.
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 amount of alimony awarded is within the sound discretion of the court to insure equity and justice.”
Establishes the standard of review for alimony awards and justifies affirmance of the amount awarded
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband and wife were married for 26 years and had three children. The husband was the primary wage earner, though both parties are highly educated. T…
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 Award cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, Judge.
Appellant/Cross-appellee, Ana R. Bovet (wife), appeals the form and amount of alimony awarded her, and the trial court’s failure to retain jurisdiction for future modifications, if needed. Appellee/Cross-appellant, Claude J.J. Bovet (husband) cross appeals the award of alimony. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Husband and wife were married for twenty-six years during which three children were born. During the marriage, the husband was the primary wage earner, although both husband and wife are highly educated. Before the dissolution, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement resolving all issues except alimony, if any, which was to be determined by the court. Another pertinent fact is that the wife recently underwent breast cancer surgery and is receiving radiation treatments.
After a hearing, the trial court granted the dissolution, adopted the property settlement agreement, and granted the wife periodic rehabilitative alimony in the aggregate amount of $16,500, payable over 18 months. The court did not reserve jurisdiction for any future modification of alimony. Upon cross-motions for rehearing, the trial court amended its final judgment converting the periodic rehabilitative alimony into one lump sum payment of $16,500, and again denied the motion to reserve jurisdiction.
The wife asserts that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to award sufficient alimony, and refusing to reserve jurisdiction for future modifications. The husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding any alimony, and in converting the periodic payments into one lump sum amount.
The amount of alimony awarded is within the sound discretion of the court to insure equity and justice. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We find no abuse of discretion in the amount of alimony awarded in light of both parties’ financial circumstances.
We do find an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s sua sponte conversion of the periodic rehabilitative alimony into a lump sum payment, foreclosing access to modification, if needed, within the eighteen month payment period previously accorded the wife. We also find error in the trial court’s failure to reserve jurisdiction for a reasonable period of time in light of the wife’s health problems and need for rehabilitation. See Halberg v. Halberg, 519 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Langston v. Langston, 257 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Gordon v. Gordon, 204 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Holley, 86 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…n. See, e.g., Herman v. Herman, 889 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gruner v. Westmark, 617 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Bovet v. Bovet, 563 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). But there is no violation of the right to due process unless the litigant is deprived of either notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the court reaches a final decision on the matter as to which jurisdiction has b…
-
Dannie Anthony Austin v. Liliam M. Austin, 785 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…tends that the amount awarded to the wife as permanent alimony was an abuse of discretion. We agree. The amount of alimony that a trial court awards is within its sound discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Bovet v. Bovet, 563 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). When awarding alimony, the trial court should attempt to place the parties “as close as possible to the prior lifestyle, given the financial resources available.” Laz v. Laz, 727 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), review denied,…
-
Rashotsky v. Rashotsky, 782 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…he wife $6,000 a month in permanent periodic alimony, as well as the first $12,984 of any bonus. The amount of alimony that a trial court awards is within its sound discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Bovet v. Bovet, 563 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). When awarding alimony, the trial court should attempt to place the parties “as close as possible to the prior lifestyle, given the financial resources available.” Laz v. Laz, 727 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However,…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- O'Dell v. Carlton B. O'Dell, 204 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Halberg v. Halberg, 519 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Langston v. Langston, 257 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)