ANGEL M. CORCHADO, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JULIA M. CORCHADO, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 court held that the trial court's order awarding rehabilitative alimony and denying attorney's fees lacked sufficient factual findings to support the award.
In a dissolution of marriage action, the former husband appealed and the former wife cross-appealed the final order.…
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 Bridge-The-Gap Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this dissolution of marriage action, the former husband appeals and the former wife cross-appeals. We affirm in all respects except for the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony to the former wife and the denial of the former wife’s request for attorney’s fees.
The final order of the trial court fails to adequately show a basis for the award of rehabilitative alimony to the wife in the amount of $650 per month for four years. The primary purpose for awarding rehabilitative alimony is to “establish the capacity for self-support of the receiving spouse, either through the redevelopment of previous skills or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills.” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980). In addition, some courts have allowed rehabilitative alimony awards to serve as a “bridge-the-gap” measure to aid the recipient spouse in making the transition from a married to a single state. See Shea v. Shea, 572 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Bridges v. Bridges, 506 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1987); Contra Martin v. Martin, 582 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
In the present case, no legally recognized basis for an award of rehabilitative alimony is readily discernible from the factual findings in the final order. Therefore, we vacate the award and remand to the trial court to either reinstate, amend or delete the rehabilitative alimony after placing additional findings in the order. The trial court may, in its discretion, hold additional evidentiary hearings on remand. In view of our holding in regard to rehabilitative alimony, we also vacate the trial court’s order denying the wife attorney’s fees so that the question may be re-examined by the trial court in light of the subsequent findings on remand.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
WARNER, PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bart L. Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…r make sufficient findings of fact to enable this court to determine the appropriateness of the permanent periodic alimony award, or to consider another form of alimony which would be supportable by the record in this case. See Corchado v. Corchado, 648 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(discussing the appropriateness of rehabilitative or “bridge-the-gap” alimony as opposed to permanent periodic alimony); see also Aresty, 667 So. 2d at 846 (same); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)(same…
-
Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…proving award of bridge-the-gap alimony after rehabilitation but reversing amount); Murray v. Murray, 374 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (reversing award of rehabilitative alimony and suggesting bridge-the-gap alimony instead); Corchado v. Corchado, 648 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (approving rehabilitative alimony awards to “bridge the gap”); McHugh v. McHugh, 702 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (same); Green v. Green, 672 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (same); Shea v. Shea, 572 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990…
-
Wofford v. Wofford, 20 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…explained in Yitzhari v. Yitzhari, 906 So. 2d 1250, 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), “[b]ridge-the-gap alimony serves to assist a spouse already capable of self-support during the transition from being married to being single.” Accord Corchado v. Corchado, 648 So. 2d 1261, 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“[S]ome courts have allowed rehabilitative alimony awards to serve as a ‘bridge-the-gap’ measure to aid the recipient spouse in making the transition from a married to a single state.”). Bridge-the-gap alimony does not com…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Shea v. Shea, 572 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Martin v. Martin, 582 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Schleman v. Schleman, 506 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Bridges v. Beryl C. Bridges, 506 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)