LOIS I. COLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIAN STEPHEN COLLINS, SR., 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.
Wife appeals from a final judgment dissolving a 31-year marriage, challenging the trial court's denial of permanent periodic alimony. The appellate court reverses and remands on the alimony issue due to the trial court's failure to enter required written findings of fact, while affirming all other issues.
The trial court erred in denying alimony without entering written findings of fact as required by statute. The court reverses the denial of alimony and remands for the trial court to reconsider the alimony decision and enter written findings supporting whatever decision it ultimately makes.
[1] A trial court has discretion to award permanent periodic alimony based on factors including the standard of living during the marriage, its duration, the parties' ages an…
[2] A party's contribution to the marriage, including homemaking, childcare, and the other party's career building, is a relevant factor in determining alimony.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“In all dissolution actions, the court shall include findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award or denial of alimony.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for written findings that the trial court violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife and husband were married for thirty-one years. The husband's gross monthly income is approximately three times that of the wife. The wife has…
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 Findings Of Fact For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lois I. Collins (wife) appeals from a final judgment dissolving her thirty-one-year marriage with Julian Stephen Collins, Sr. (husband). The wife raises six issues on appeal. We reverse and remand on the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying permanent periodic alimony to the wife, and affirm, without discussion, all remaining issues raised on appeal.
The wife argues she is entitled to permanent periodic alimony, given the length of the marriage, the fact that the husband’s gross monthly income is about three times that of the wife, the husband’s superior earning capacity, and the wife’s limited earning capacity, given her age and work experience. She also argues the trial court erred by failing to make findings of fact required by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (1993) to support its decision to deny the wife alimony. Section 61.08(1) provides, in relevant part: “In all dissolution actions, the court shall include findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award or denial of alimony.”1 Review of the final judgment reflects an absence of written findings to support the trial court’s decision regarding alimony. Without these findings, meaningful appellate review of the alimony decision is not possible. Jacques v. Jacques, 609 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s ruling denying the wife alimony. On remand, we direct the trial court to reconsider its decision to deny alimony in light of Fontana v. Fontana, 617 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Whether the trial court ultimately decides to grant or deny alimony, it must enter written findings to support its decision.
The judgment is otherwise affirmed in all respects.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, and REVERSE and REMAND in part.
BOOTH, LAWRENCE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . Section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in pertinent part:
In determining a proper award of alimony or maintenance, the court shall consider all relevant economic factors, including but not limited to:
(a) The standard of living established during the marriage.
(b) The duration of the marriage.
(c) The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party.
(d) The financial resources of each party, the nonmarital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each.
(e) When applicable, the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment.
(f) The contribution of each party to the marriage, including, but not limited to, services rendered in homemaking, child care, education, and career building of the other party.
(g) All sources of income available to either party.
The court may consider any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chapoteau v. Jean-Rene Chapoteau, 659 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…denial of the former wife’s request for alimony. The court did not make the findings required in section 61.08(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). The denial of alimony without the appropriate findings required by the statute must be reversed. Collins v. Collins, 655 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Miller v. Miller, 625 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Hemraj v. Hemraj, 620 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Based on the foregoing reasoning, we reverse the final judgment of dissolution, except insofar as it dissolves the ma…
-
Ponte v. Ponte, 692 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…per month.” This blanket finding does not meet the directive of section 61.08(1) that the court “include findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award or denial of alimony.” See, e.g., Collins v. Collins, 655 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(without written findings to support the trial court’s decision regarding alimony, meaningful appellate review is not possible); Jacques v. Jacques, 609 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DC…
Authorities Cited
- Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Jacques v. Jacques, 609 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Fontana v. Fontana, 617 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)