RUBY A. HOLMES, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD E. HOLMES, 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.
Ruby Holmes appealed a final judgment dissolving her marriage, challenging the trial court's award of rehabilitative rather than permanent periodic alimony and the allocation of tax consequences from a condominium awarded to her. The appellate court affirmed the divorce judgment in part but reversed and remanded regarding the alimony structure and tax liability allocation.
The court held that the trial court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony because there was no competent evidence it would enable the appellant to become self-supporting. The court also held that the trial court erred in imposing all tax consequences on the appellant, as a sale within five years would generate over $50,000 in taxable income from depreciation taken during the marriage, and this tax burden should be shared equitably between the parties.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony is intended to establish the capacity of a receiving spouse for self-support through redevelopment of previous skills or training for new skills.
[2] A court should award permanent periodic alimony when there is no competent evidence that rehabilitative alimony will enable the receiving spouse to become self-supporting…
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“Rehabilitative alimony is used to establish the capacity of self-support in the receiving spouse, either by redevelopment of previous skills, or by providing for the training necessary to develop new skills to aid in one's support.”
Establishes the legal definition and purpose of rehabilitative alimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married and owned a condominium as tenants by the entireties. The condominium had been purchased as an investment, and the parties ha…
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
SCHOONOVER, Chief Judge.
The appellant, Ruby A. Holmes, challenges a final judgment dissolving her marriage to the appellee, Donald E. Holmes. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Although we reject the appellant’s main contention on appeal, we agree that the trial court erred by awarding her rehabilitative rather than permanent periodic alimony and by making her responsible for certain tax consequences in connection with the condominium awarded to her. The trial court in its final judgment awarded the appellant permanent periodic alimony in the amount of $386 per month and rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $300 per month for twelve months. Rehabilitative alimony is used to establish the capacity of self-support in the receiving spouse, either by redevelopment of previous skills, or by providing for the training necessary to develop new skills to aid in one’s support. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The record contains no competent evidence indicating that rehabilitative alimony will provide for the redevelopment or training necessary to permit the appellant to become self-supporting or to offset the amount awarded as rehabilitative alimony. The court, accordingly, should have awarded the appellant $686 per month as permanent periodic alimony. Condren v. Condren, 475 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
We find no error in the trial court awarding the appellant the condominium which had been owned by the parties as tenants by the entireties. The final judgment, however, provided that the appellant was to be responsible for the “liquidation and payment of the mortgage, insurance, liens, and taxes,” and to “save the husband harmless from consequent liability.” Under the circumstances of this case, this requirement would upset the otherwise equitable distribution of assets.
The condominium had originally been purchased as an investment, and the parties had taken depreciation in the amount of $52,700 between 1981 and 1988. Based upon the evidence in the record, because of the depreciation taken, a sale of the condominium at the time of the final hearing would have resulted in taxable income to the appellant of more than fifty thousand dollars under the terms of the final judgment. Based upon the relative positions of the parties under the terms of the final judgment, this tax burden should be shared by the parties. The final judgment should, accordingly, be amended to provide that if the condominium is sold within five years of the date of the amended final judgment, the appellee will be responsible for one-half of any taxes imposed upon the sale as a result of the depreciation taken by the parties between 1981 and 1988.
We, accordingly, reverse and remand with instructions to enter an amended final judgment in accordance with this opinion. We affirm in all other respects.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
RYDER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
England v. England, 626 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…e to remand for consideration of tax consequences because of the actions of the parties during the marriage of taking deductions which deferred income tax liabilities until the date when the properties would be sold. Similarly, in Holmes v. Holmes, 579 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), during the marriage depreciation had been taken on a condominium so that when the condominium was eventually sold, if within 5 years of the date of the amended final judgment, a substantial tax burden would be due. The appellate…
-
Ingram v. Ingram, 750 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ative alimony when the evidence shows that the recipient can redevelop previous skills or be trained to develop new skills, which will make him or her self-supporting. See Garcia v. Garcia, 696 So. 2d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Holmes v. Holmes, 579 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). An award of rehabilitative alimony is appropriate “only if the parties have presented detailed evidence of the cost of the education, the prospects of subsequent employment, and the time it -will take the receiving spouse to reac…
-
Roseann G. Garcia v. Garcia, 696 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ehabilitative alimony is appropriate where it is shown that the recipient can redevelop previous skills or be trained to develop new skills, which will make him or her self-supporting or offset the amount of rehabilitative alimony. Holmes v. Holmes, 579 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA1991). Here, the evidence shows only that the wife has no interest in pursuing her former career, and that her present business interests are operating at a loss. There has been no showing that, even if the wife can be rehabilitated, she…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Condren v. Condren, 475 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)