ROSEANN G. GARCIA, APPELLANT,
v.
EDUARDO GARCIA, 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 divorce appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's equitable distribution of assets and alimony award following a 32-year marriage. The court affirmed the asset distribution but reversed the alimony award, finding that rehabilitative alimony was inappropriate because the wife had no interest in reviving her former career and her current business ventures were unprofitable.
The court reversed the alimony award, holding that rehabilitative alimony was inappropriate because the wife demonstrated no interest in pursuing her former real estate career and her current business ventures were unprofitable, with no showing that she could become self-supporting even with rehabilitation. The wife is entitled to an increased amount of permanent periodic alimony instead.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony is appropriate only when the recipient can redevelop previous skills or be trained for new skills to become self-supporting or offset the alimony a…
[2] A trial court errs in awarding rehabilitative alimony when there is no showing that the recipient can become self-supporting or offset the award, even if rehabilitation i…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Rehabilitative alimony is appropriate where it is shown that the recipient can redevelop previous skills or be trained to develop new skills, which will make him or her self-supporting or offset the amount of rehabilitative alimony.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding rehabilitative alimony under Florida law.
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 32 years. The husband's net monthly income was $11,159, while the wife was employed but earning no net income. 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 Equitable Distribution Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The appellant, Roseann G. Garcia, the wife herein, challenges a final judgment dissolving her thirty-two-year marriage to the appellee, Eduardo Garcia, the husband herein. We disagree with the wife that the trial court erred in the equitable distribution of assets and affirm on that issue. We agree, however, that the trial court erred in awarding the wife a combination of rehabilitative and permanent alimony. We, therefore, reverse on that issue.
In the final judgment of dissolution, the trial court determined that the husband’s net monthly income is $11,159; the wife is employed but not earning net income; the wife is employable, has a bachelor’s degree and is in good health; the wife has a past earning potential of $11,000 annually for a twenty-five-hour work week; and the wife has a future earning capacity, though it will take her at least two years to obtain suitable employment and become established. The trial court awarded the wife $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony, and $2,000 per month in rehabilitative alimony for two years, reduced to $1,000 per month the following year, and ceasing thereafter. The alimony is taxable to the wife and deductible by the husband for federal income tax purposes.
The evidence shows that the wife worked part time as a real estate agent for approximately ten years and earned $11,000 during her best year. She, however, has not worked in real estate for seven years and has no interest in rekindling that career. In 1992, the wife started a historic tours business as a hobby, and she is also currently a partner in a business that sells historic articles. Neither of her businesses has produced any net income, though both have produced losses.
Rehabilitative alimony is appropriate where it is shown that the recipient can redevelop previous skills or be trained to develop new skills, which will make him or her self-supporting or offset the amount of rehabilitative alimony. Holmes v. Holmes, 579 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA1991). Here, the evidence shows only that the wife has no interest in pursuing her former career, and that her present business interests are operating at a loss. There has been no showing that, even if the wife can be rehabilitated, she can earn enough to become self supporting or to otherwise offset the rehabilitative portion of the alimony award. For that reason, the trial court erred in designating any portion of the award as rehabilitative.
Since rehabilitative alimony is inappropriate in this instance, the wife is entitled to an increased amount of permanent periodic alimony. The current alimony award is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. The final judgment of dissolution is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rykiel v. Rykiel, 838 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2003)…led to applicable deductions.” The court erred in so ruling. The usual treatment of alimony is to make the alimony taxable to the recipient and deductible by the payer. See generally Rihl v. Rihl, 727 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Garcia v. Garcia, 696 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). If the trial court wanted to avoid burdening the former wife with the tax consequences of the alimony payments the court has the discretion to provide that “the payor [former husband] will not deduct the alimony payments so that…
-
Almodovar v. Almodovar, 754 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…led to applicable deductions.” The court erred in so ruling. The usual treatment of alimony is to make the alimony taxable to the recipient and deductible by the payer. See generally Rihl v. Rihl, 727 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Garcia v. Garcia, 696 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). If the trial court wanted to avoid burdening the former wife with the tax consequences of the alimony payments the court has the discretion to provide that “the payor [former husband] will not deduct the alimony payments so that…
-
Ingram v. Ingram, 750 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…would be less expensive. [*132] A court may award rehabilitative alimony when the evidence shows that the recipient can redevelop previous skills or be trained to develop new skills, which will make him or her self-supporting. See Garcia v. Garcia, 696 So. 2d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Holmes v. Holmes, 579 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). An award of rehabilitative alimony is appropriate “only if the parties have presented detailed evidence of the cost of the education, the prospects of subsequent employme…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holmes v. Holmes, 579 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)