ROSELYNE H. REGISTER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT E. REGISTER, 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 erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony and failing to recognize the wife's rights in the marital pension. The court also found that the award of attorney's fees and the denial of permanent alimony must be re-examined on remand.
This is an appeal from a marital dissolution judgment. The wife did not seek rehabilitative alimony but it was awarded. The wife sought her share of t…
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 Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a marital dissolution case. We affirm the judgment except as set out below.
Appellant did not seek rehabilitative alimony, so she offered no evidence in that regard. It was error to award it. See Robinson v. Robinson, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). It is well established that a party seeking rehabilitative alimony must prove the necessity for such an award and present a plan for rehabilitation. See Horgan v. Horgan, 622 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Adams v. Adams, 604 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. den., 614 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1993); Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Appellant did seek her share of the pension of appellee. The court erred in failing to recognize her rights in this marital property. See Cox v. Cox, 659 So. 2d 1051 (Fla.1995); Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986); Cole v. Roberts, 661 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Because we must reverse these awards, it will be necessary on remand for the trial judge to reexamine the award of attorney’s fees to appellant and the lack of award of permanent alimony to appellant. If the income and assets of the parties is nearly equal, then neither is entitled to receive attorney’s fees from the other. The determination of whether appellant is entitled to permanent alimony should be made anew when all of the financial equities are considered on remand.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryan v. Bryan, 765 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ppellant correctly notes that the appellee did not present a specific written or oral rehabilitation plan. Thus, the award of rehabilitative alimony cannot stand. See Beasley v. Beasley, 717 So. 2d 208, 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Register v. Register, 690 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (party requesting rehabilitative alimony must prove necessity for award and present plan for rehabilitation). Our inquiry does not end here, however, for the absence of a specific rehabilitative plan will not rule out an award on…
-
Beasley v. Serenna Ann Beasley, 717 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…entation of a rehabilitative plan. Appellant is correct that no written plan was presented by Appellee, nor was an oral rehabilitation plan presented. Under these circumstances, it was error to award rehabilitative alimony. See Register v. Register, 690 So. 2d 750, 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“It is well established that a party seeking rehabilitative alimony must prove the necessity for such an award and present a plan for rehabilitation.”); Brock v. Brock, 682 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“[A] viable r…
-
Weller v. Weller, 709 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…rehabilitative alimony would be appropriate but conclude that such an award could not be made given the ex-wife’s failure to present below any plan for rehabilitation. See Glazner v. Glazner, 693 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Register v. Register, 690 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Martin v. Martin, 582 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Nothing in our opinion should be read as disturbing paragraph E of the dissolution judgment to the extent it requires the husband to provide health insurance for t…
Authorities Cited
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Vernell v. Edge, Inc., 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Budagail S. Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Adams v. Adams, 604 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Cole v. Roberts, 661 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- COX v. Kimi Lea COX, 659 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1995)
- Dyer v. State, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Robinson v. Lurana Dupree Robinson, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Denis C. Horgan v. Mariellen Horgan, 622 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)