PATRICIA DEANNE STRAHAN, APPELLANT,
v.
GRANT DONALD STRAHAN, 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.
Patricia Strahan appeals a dissolution judgment denying her alimony, arguing the trial court erred in failing to award any form of alimony and in assessing the husband's ability to pay only as of the hearing date. The appellate court affirmed the denial of present alimony but reversed in part to require the trial court to expressly reserve jurisdiction to award future alimony if circumstances change.
The trial court did not err in refusing to award alimony given that neither party was employed at the time of the proceeding and there were no substantial assets to warrant such an award. However, the court erred in failing to expressly reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future if the husband's circumstances change and demonstrate appropriate need and ability to pay.
[1] A trial court may err by failing to reserve jurisdiction to consider a party's future entitlement to alimony, particularly in long-term marriages where one party may have…
[2] A trial court's assessment of a party's ability to pay alimony should not be based solely on their ability to pay on the date of the final hearing.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because of that fact, together with the lack of any substantial assets to warrant alimony, we cannot fault the trial court for refusing to make such an award. However, this was a long-term marriage and the husband appears to have a superior earning capacity. Therefore, we believe the wife may be entitled to an award of alimony in the future, should circumstances change and demonstrate the appropriate need and ability”
Establishes the court's reasoning that present alimony was properly denied but future alimony may be warranted given the long-term marriage and husband's superior earning capacity
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoth parties were employed by Eastern Airlines and earned substantial salaries, with the husband earning over twice as much as the wife. Due to Easter…
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 Long-Term Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The former wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution contending that the trial court erred in failing to award the wife alimony in any form and in assessing the husband’s ability to pay solely on his ability to pay on the date of the final hearing.
Under the circumstances of this case, we find no reversible error demonstrated with the possible exception of the court’s failure to reserve jurisdiction to consider the wife’s entitlement to alimony in the future.
The parties had both been employed by Eastern Airlines, but were laid off due to the eventual bankruptcy of the company. The husband earned over twice as much as the wife during said employment, but at the time of this proceeding neither was employed nor had had any success in finding other employment. Because of that fact, together with the lack of any substantial assets to warrant alimony, we cannot fault the trial court for refusing to make such an award. However, this was a long-term marriage and the husband appears to have a superior earning capacity. Therefore, we believe the wife may be entitled to an award of alimony in the future, should circumstances change and demonstrate the appropriate need and ability-
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed from in all respects except as to the failure to specifically reserve jurisdiction to award any alimony in the future, if justified, and remand the cause with directions to amend the judgment to expressly so provide. In doing so, we acknowledge that the judgment contains a boiler-plate reservation of jurisdiction to do all things that the court deems just and equitable. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution we direct the court to reserve jurisdiction specifically for the purpose of awarding future alimony. See Mullins v. Mullins, 409 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…lurality’s decision. See Moore v. Moore, 401 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (proper for trial court to retain jurisdiction to award alimony to husband in future). See also Walter, 464 So. 2d at 540; Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1201; Strahan v. Strahan, 605 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Mullins v. Mullins, 409 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Apparently, we will not reach the issue of whether the trial court properly ruled that the alimony award would automatically be extinguished if the wife “cohabits” with an…
-
Blanchard v. Maran L. Blanchard, 793 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…nder these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the wife a nominal amount of permanent periodic alimony, thus reserving jurisdiction to revisit this claim as the parties’ new lives develop. See Stratum v. Strahan, 605 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). See also Fusco v. Fusco, 616 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. PATTERSON, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.…
-
Stock v. Stock, 693 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…but merely reserved jurisdiction to make that determination at a later time. The question whether to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future lies within the court’s discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Strahan v. Strahan, 605 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Roy v. Roy, 522 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Here, the evidence shows a likelihood that there will be a change in circumstances that would enable the husband to meet his obligation to contribute to the wife’s support. That bei…
Authorities Cited
- Mullins v. Mullins, 409 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)