MINDY NATOLI, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL NATOLI AND LOUISE BECHAMP, APPELLEES
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.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's determination of the effective date of rehabilitative alimony termination and its denial of attorney's fees to the former wife, finding abuse of discretion on both issues.
Rehabilitative alimony terminates on the date the modification petition is filed when the basis for termination exists on that date, and attorney's fees must be awarded when there is a disparity in financial resources and earning ability.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony terminates effective on the date a modification petition is filed when the factual basis for termination exists on that filing date, not on the dat…
[2] Attorney's fees must be awarded in post-dissolution proceedings when the parties have disparate financial resources and one party has superior earning ability.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“A termination of alimony should be effective on the date of the filing of the petition for modification when the basis for termination exists on the date of filing.”
Citation to Alford v. Alford establishing the proper effective date for alimony termination in modification proceedings.
A former wife appealed a post-dissolution order addressing financial issues between herself and her former husband, including rehabilitative alimony a…
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
PER CURIAM.
The former wife appeals a post-dissolution order deciding motions concerning financial issues between the parties.
We find error only in the trial court’s rulings on rehabilitative alimony payments and the attorney’s fee award to the former wife. We therefore reverse the order as to those rulings but affirm the remainder of the order. The trial court abused its discretion in determining that the former wife's rehabilitative alimony award terminated on the date of the filing of the former husband’s March 1993 modification petition. The court should have ordered the husband’s obligation terminated in July 1993, when the trial court determined that the wife was no longer entitled to the award. See Alford v. Alford, 594 So. 2d 843, 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (“[A] termination of alimony should be effective on the date of the filing of the petition for modification when the basis for termination exists on the date of filing.”).
In addition, the trial court erred in denying the wife’s motion for attorney’s fees in light of the parties’ disparate financial resources and the husband’s superior earning ability. Canakaris v. Cacnakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Montante v. Montante, 627 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); § 61.16, Fla.Stat. (1993).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Revitz v. Terrell, 627 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Alford v. Alford, 594 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)