WILLIAM TERRANCE BUSCH, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIA ANN BUSCH, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed and remanded an alimony award because the trial court failed to distinguish between rehabilitative and permanent periodic alimony, which have different survival rules upon remarriage.
A trial court must distinguish between rehabilitative and permanent periodic alimony in its judgment because rehabilitative alimony may survive remarriage while permanent periodic alimony cannot.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony may survive the recipient's remarriage, but permanent periodic alimony terminates upon remarriage, and a trial court must distinguish between these…
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 intelligence“the court shall include findings of fact ... supporting an award or denial of alimony”
Section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes requirement for trial court findings in alimony cases
William Terrance Busch appealed a final judgment awarding alimony to his ex-wife Julia Ann Busch. The trial court awarded alimony and reserved jurisdi…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
BENTON, Judge.
William Terrance Busch appeals a final judgment awarding alimony on grounds it is unsupported by the evidence, unjustified by the trial court’s findings, improperly awards “additional alimony notwithstanding her [re-jmarriage” on the basis of the mere possibility of his receiving disability retirement benefits in the future, and reserves jurisdiction to award additional alimony in the event he receives no retirement benefits at all, again even in the event Julia Ann Busch has remarried.
The evidence and the trial court’s findings, see section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1993) (“the court shall include findings of fact ... supporting an award or denial of alimony”) are more than adequate to justify awards of alimony, both rehabilitative and permanent periodic. We nevertheless remand, because the final judgment does not distinguish between these two types of award. Rehabilitative alimony may survive the awardee’s remarriage, Owens v. Owens, 559 So. 2d 321, 323 (Fla. 1st DCA1990), while permanent periodic alimony cannot. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980). If the trial court orders periodic alimony, it retains jurisdiction to revisit the question of alimony as long as Mrs. Busch’s entitlement to receive alimony lasts, but the trial court has no authority to order permanent periodic alimony after her remarriage.
Reversed and remanded.
MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Owens v. Owens, 559 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)