CATHERINE STARNES FITCH, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID PAUL FITCH, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of $1,000 alimony and the requirement that the former wife pay half of uninsured extraordinary expenses for the children, but reversed and remanded because the alimony should have been classified as permanent periodic alimony rather than rehabilitative.
Alimony in a dissolution proceeding must be classified as permanent periodic alimony rather than rehabilitative when the circumstances warrant ongoing support.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, alimony must be classified as permanent periodic alimony rather than rehabilitative when the circumstances of the case warrant on…
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution proceeding, the trial court awarded the former wife $1,000 in rehabilitative alimony and required her to pay one-half of the minor ch…
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 Life Insurance As Security cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
In this dissolution proceeding, the former wife challenges the trial court’s award of $1,000 in rehabilitative alimony, contending that it should have been permanent, periodic alimony, rather than rehabilitative, and that the amount of alimony should have been greater. She also asserts that the trial court erred by requiring her to pay one-half of the minor children’s extraordinary medical, dental, optical, orthodontic and psychological expenses that are not covered by insurance, and by directing that the former husband’s obligation to maintain life insurance as security for child support and alimony terminate upon the end of child support or the former husband’s retirement, whichever occurred later. Although we find no abuse of discretion in the requirement that the former wife pay one-half of the uninsured expenses and in the amount of alimony, we agree with the former wife that the alimony should have been classified as permanent, periodic alimony. See Fontana v. Fontana, 617 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Lanier v. Lanier, 594 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Akers v. Akers, 582 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 592 So. 2d 679 (Fla.1991); Wolff v. Wolff, 576 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In light of our disposition of the alimony issue, the trial court, on remand, may reconsider the insurance issue.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.
BARFIELD and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Patterson v. Cuervo, 683 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…it in the court’s award that the expenses be reasonable and necessary, particularly in view of the court’s recognition and consideration of the parties’ limited financial abilities. Monas v. Monas, 665 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Fitch v. Fitch, 643 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Imami. But see McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (error to order spouse to pay uncovered medical expenses without setting specific dollar amoun…
Authorities Cited
- Akers v. Akers, 582 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Lanier v. Lanier, 594 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Wolff v. Wolff, 576 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fontana v. Fontana, 617 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)