LAURIE W. WINKLES, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
D. FRANK WINKLES, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a divorce judgment's equitable distribution and alimony award but struck the automatic termination clause for rehabilitative alimony upon the wife's remarriage, holding that remarriage may be considered as a circumstance affecting alimony but does not automatically terminate it.
A trial court may consider remarriage as a circumstance that can eliminate the need for rehabilitative alimony, but remarriage does not automatically terminate such alimony.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony does not automatically terminate upon the payor spouse's remarriage, though remarriage may be considered as a circumstance affecting the continued…
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 intelligenceLaurie W. Winkles and D. Frank Winkles divorced, and the trial court awarded rehabilitative alimony in periodic payments with a provision that payment…
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
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
In this appeal and cross-appeal from the final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties, we find merit in only one of the issues raised. After careful scrutiny of the widely varying claims of the parties, the trial court fashioned a comprehensive judgment utilizing several remedies to accomplish equity and justice between them. In the totality of the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the scheme devised by the court. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). In its award of rehabilitative alimony in periodic payments, however, the court provided that the payments were to terminate upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the wife. While there is conflict among the district courts of appeal whether rehabilitative alimony automatically terminates upon remarriage, see Bentzoni v. Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) and the cases cited therein, this court disapproves of automatic termination on such a ground. Frye v. Frye, 385 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Nevertheless, we have held that a trial court may properly consider remarriage as a circumstance which can, but does not necessarily, eliminate the need for further rehabilitative alimony. Faircloth v. Faircloth, 449 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Therefore, we strike the impermissible clause from the final judgment and affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed as modified.
LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Frye v. Frye, 385 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Singleton v. W. Volusia Hosp. Auth., 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Bentzoni v. Prudence Martin Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 449 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)