BARBARA J. GOVE, APPELLANT,
v.
GORDON R. GOVE, 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.
Barbara Gove appealed a final judgment in her divorce case, challenging the distribution of assets and the denial of attorney's fees. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed on two key issues, holding that the trial judge abused his discretion by failing to award permanent periodic alimony and by denying the wife's request for attorney's fees.
The trial judge abused his discretion by failing to order the husband to pay the wife's attorney's fees and by failing to award the wife permanent periodic alimony. The wife was entitled to both awards based on the husband's superior financial position and her need for support at the standard of living established during the marriage.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to order a husband to pay a wife's attorney's fees when the husband has a substantially superior financial position.
[2] Permanent periodic alimony is intended to provide for the needs and necessities of life to a former spouse as established during the marriage.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 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.”
Establishes the fundamental purpose and standard for awarding permanent periodic alimony in Florida divorce cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband was receiving $10,000 monthly income while the wife had approximately $1,200 per month. The trial judge awarded the husband three houses 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 Equitable Distribution Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The wife appeals the distribution of assets contained in the final judgment and the order which denied an award of her attorney’s fees. We reverse as to two points raised in the consolidated appeals and affirm as to the others. The wife’s attorney’s fees should have been paid by the husband and the wife should have been awarded permanent periodic alimony. The trial judge found that the husband was “receiving $10,000 monthly” and the wife had an income of “approximately $1,200 per month.” The final judgment awarded the husband the three houses titled in his and the wife’s names. His income and the houses gave the husband a substantially 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 type of alimony are the needs of one spouse for the alimony and the ability of the other spouse to provide it. Id. “The criteria to be used in establishing need include the parties’ earning ability, age, health, education, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living during its course, and the value of the parties’ estates.” Id. at 1201-1202. In limited circumstances, permanent periodic alimony may be used to balance inequities rather than to provide support.1 Id. at 1202. Based on the circumstances of this appeal, we hold that the trial judge abused his discretion when he failed to award the wife permanent periodic alimony.
Accordingly, we remand with directions to the trial judge to award the wife permanent periodic alimony and her attorney’s fees.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur. . We acknowledge that the final judgment gave $27,500 to the wife. But, we consider that award to be lump sum alimony given to counterbalance the award of the houses. The wife received nothing to counterbalance her inability to support herself at the level she enjoyed during the marriage.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bacon v. Wilton Jackson Bacon, 819 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ll other things being equal, “periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former ' spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties.” Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1201 (emphasis added); Gove v. Gove, 579 So. 2d 756, 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Knoff v. Knoff, 751 So. 2d 167, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Here, maintaining that standard of living for both parties did not mandate paring the wife’s expenses and maximizing her income while, at the same time, disre…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Gibbons v. Gibbons, 560 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)