MICHAEL KELLERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STELLA DENISE KELLERMAN, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the husband challenged the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony to his ex-wife. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the permanent alimony award as an abuse of discretion, but substituted rehabilitative alimony of $300 per month until the youngest child begins kindergarten, finding the wife's earning ability and short marriage did not justify permanent support.
The trial court abused its discretion in awarding permanent periodic alimony because the wife's earning ability, age, health, education, and the short-term marriage duration did not establish that such support was necessary to provide the needs and necessities of life as established by the marriage. However, rehabilitative alimony of $300 per month until the youngest child begins kindergarten is appropriate given the wife's need to care for two minor children.
[1] Permanent periodic alimony is intended to provide for the needs and necessities of life for a former spouse as established by the marriage.
[2] Factors for establishing the need for permanent periodic alimony include earning ability, age, health, education, duration of the marriage, standard of living during the…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties”
Establishes the legal standard and purpose for permanent periodic alimony, requiring a nexus between the award and needs established during the marriage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a short-term marriage lasting less than seven years and two minor children (ages five and one). The wife is a 33-year-old Florida real…
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 Earning Ability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and contends that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the wife $300.00 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We agree.
In Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), the Florida Supreme Court explained:
Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties _ The criteria to be used in establishing this need include the parties’ earning ability, age, health, education, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed during its course, and the value of the parties’ estates.
Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1201-02.
When examining the instant case in light of Canakaris, the record below reflects that the wife is a Florida real estate sales person making an annual gross income over the past three years ranging from $29,000.00 to $40,000.00, that she is thirty-three years old and in good mental and physical health, that the parties had a short-term marriage lasting less than seven years, that the parties had a comfortable lifestyle during the course of their marriage, and lastly, that neither party has substantially more assets or liabilities than the other. Based on the foregoing, specifically, the wife’s earning ability, her education, her age, her health, and the parties’ short-term marriage, we find that the trial court’s award of permanent periodic alimony was an abuse of discretion because the award was not necessary to provide the needs and the necessities of life to the wife as they had been established by the parties’ marriage. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s award of permanent periodic alimony. However, because the wife’s earning ability may be diminished by her obligation to care for the parties’ two minor children, a five-year-old and a one-year-old, we find that an award of rehabilitative alimony is appropriate. “The principle purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self-support of the receiving spouse.” Cana-karis, 382 So. 2d at 1202. Therefore, we award the wife rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $300.00 per month until the youngest child begins kindergarten.
The husband’s remaining points lack merit.
Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and rehabilitative alimony awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Layeni v. Kehinde A. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…alimony awards. See Escudero v. Escudero, 739 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (nine-year marriage falls into gray area); Bailey v. Bailey, 617 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (eight-year marriage falls into gray area). See also Kellerman v. Kellerman, 659 So. 2d 1390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (less than seven-year marriage is a short term marriage). The former wife in Reeves enjoyed good health. The former wife in this case suffers from numerous serious medical conditions. Further, care of the two special needs childre…
-
Mobley v. Mobley, 18 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…year marriage is in the gray area for which there is no presumption for or against alimony); Bailey v. Bailey, 617 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (treating eight-year marriage as in the gray area for purposes of alimony); Kellerman v. Kellerman, 659 So. 2d 1390, 1390 (Fla. 3d DCA [*728] 1995) (stating the parties’ marriage of less than seven years was a short-term marriage). The trial court erred as a matter of law in denying alimony on the basis that the parties were married for ten years. We reverse and…
-
Vanbrussel v. Anne Vanbrussel, 710 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…rily a statutory creature, “proceedings under Chapter 61 are in equity and governed by basic rules of fairness as opposed to the strict rule of law.” This is a short-term marriage with three children under school age. As in Kellerman v. Kellerman, 659 So. 2d 1390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), another short-term marriage, the custodial parent clearly is in need of financial assistance until the children reach school age. Under these circumstances, the requirement of what would surely amount to a speculative rehabilitat…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)