RICHARD L. WILSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERTA MOORER WILSON, 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.
Trial court abused its discretion by awarding permanent periodic alimony extending beyond the wife's remarriage and by awarding exclusive use of the marital home without termination upon remarriage or special circumstances justifying the extended duration.
Permanent periodic alimony and exclusive use of the marital home cannot extend beyond the wife's remarriage absent an agreement or special circumstances.
[1] Permanent periodic alimony awarded in a marital dissolution case must terminate upon the receiving spouse's remarriage absent an agreement or stipulation to the contrary.
[2] An award of exclusive use of the marital home must provide for termination upon the wife's remarriage and cannot extend beyond the child's age of majority without a showi…
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“In the absence of an agreement or stipulation, alimony normally terminates on the remarriage of the receiving spouse.”
Court citing White v. White for the principle that alimony terminates upon remarriage unless otherwise agreed.
In a marital dissolution case, the trial court awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony extending beyond her potential remarriage and exclusive use…
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 Upon Remarriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review an appeal from the final judgment entered on the parties’ marital dissolution. Appellant raises issues regarding the awards of permanent periodic alimony and rehabilitative alimony, the award of permanent periodic alimony beyond the wife’s remarriage, and the award of exclusive use of the marital home beyond the wife’s remarriage.
We reverse and remand as to the latter two issues, but affirm on all other issues.
The trial court abused its discretion by awarding permanent periodic alimony that extends beyond remarriage of the wife. White v. White, 429 So. 2d 730, 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied, 438 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1983) (“In the absence of an agreement or stipulation, alimony normally terminates on the remarriage of the receiving spouse.”).
Second, the trial court’s award of exclusive use of the marital home for five years is erroneous because it does not provide that such exclusive use will terminate if the wife re-marries during this period. Jones v. Jones, 330 So. 2d 536, 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In addition, we note that the trial court’s award of five years’ exclusive use extends several years beyond the child’s age of majority.
At the hearing below, the husband requested the wife’s exclusive use terminate upon the child’s reaching majority. The length of the court’s exclusive possession award is erroneous because there is no showing of special circumstances to support it. Kirkland v. Kirkland, 568 So .2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (abuse of discretion where exclusive possession extended through child’s college years without a showing of special circumstances.).
BOOTH, JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mauricio A. Arze v. Soheila Sadough-Arze, 789 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…sion of the marital home beyond the attainment of majority of a minor child, or remarriage of the party in residence, in the absence of a showing of special circumstances to support continuation of exclusive use and possession. See Wilson v. Wilson, 657 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Accord Morgenstern v. Morgenstern, 619 So. 2d 327, 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Id. at 540 (emphasis added). In this case, there was no showing of special circumstances that would support continued exclusive use and possession of t…
-
Todd v. Todd, 734 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…sion of the marital home beyond the attainment of majority of a minor child, or remarriage of the party in residence, in the absence of a showing of special circumstances to support continuation of exclusive use and possession. See Wilson v. Wilson, 657 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Accord Morgenstern v. Morgenstern, 619 So. 2d 327, 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Second, appellant maintains the final judgment is silent as to the parties’ obligation to pay ownership expenses of the marital home. In addition, no pr…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. Jones, 330 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Elga B. White v. Latrell White, 429 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Kirkland v. Kirkland, 568 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)