JOANN C. CARDILLO, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL T. CARDILLO, 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 court reversed the trial court's alimony award because it failed to consider the parties' most recent standard of living when calculating alimony. The court held that the applicable standard of living for alimony purposes is the most recent standard shared by the parties, not the historical average over the marriage.
The trial court erred by refusing to consider the most recent standard of living shared by the parties, which is the pivotal consideration in alimony analysis. The court also erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony without making findings concerning a rehabilitative plan or goal. On remand, the trial court should reconsider both the type and amount of alimony based on the most recent income and consider whether permanent periodic alimony is more appropriate given the fourteen-year marriage and Joann's nine-year absence from the workforce.
[1] In determining alimony, a court must consider the most recent standard of living shared by the parties.
[2] A trial court must make findings concerning a rehabilitative plan or goal when awarding rehabilitative alimony.
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“The applicable standard of living which Ms. Cardillo is entitled to maintain is a pivotal consideration in an alimony analysis. A review of the decisions on this issue indicates that the standard to be considered is the most recent standard of living shared by the parties.”
Establishes the core holding that the most recent standard of living, not historical average, governs alimony calculations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoann and Paul Cardillo were married for fourteen years and had two children. Toward the end of the marriage, Paul's law practice became successful an…
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 Long-Term Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
This case arises out of a divorce proceeding involving Joann and Paul Cardillo. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court erred in refusing to consider the most recent income shared by the parties in making its determination of alimony. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The parties were married fourteen years and had two children. Toward the end of the parties’ marriage Mr. Cardillo began to experience some success in his law practice, and the family’s income increased substantially. Nevertheless, the parties’ relationship deteriorated and they sought dissolution. Based on her years of marriage, her financial condition relative to her husband’s, and her long absence from the workplace, Ms. Cardillo sought permanent periodic and rehabilitative alimony. In calculating the amount of alimony, Ms. Cardillo argued that the court was required to consider the income most recently shared by the parties.
Reasoning that a consideration of the income shared by the parties for the majority of the marriage was appropriate, the trial court ordered rehabilitative alimony and refused to consider the parties’ most recent income. This decision was error. The applicable standard of living which Ms. Cardillo is entitled to maintain is a pivotal consideration in an alimony analysis. A review of the decisions on this issue indicates that the standard to be considered is the most recent standard of living shared by the parties. Bible v. Bible, 597 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Lanier v. Lanier, 594 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Pfaffko v. Pfaffko, 559 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
The trial court’s refusal to examine the parties’ most recent standard of living, a standard they had enjoyed for over two years, warrants reversal.
Additionally, we note the trial court awarded rehabilitative alimony without making any findings concerning a rehabilitative plan or goal. The court simply said the wife was in need of retraining and ordered' $700.00 per month for twenty-four months. There is no indication that this sum is to cover training for a medical career or training to update her teaching credentials. There is nothing to indicate how this $700.00 figure was calculated.
On remand, the trial court should also reconsider the type of alimony to which Ms. Cardillo is entitled. Permanent periodic alimony is appropriate where one spouse has foregone a career to stay at home and raise the children for a significant period of time. Gray v. Gray, 658 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d, DCA 1995).
In this case, the parties were married for fourteen years, and Ms. Cardillo was not employed outside the home for approximately nine of those years. Fourteen years is a long term marriage. Nelson v. Nelson, 588 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).' While there is some dispute concerning whether the parties agreed that the wife' would forego a career and stay at home, the husband certainly benefited from the arrangement. See McLean v. McLean, 652 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(evidence did not support award of rehabilitative alimony where there was a great disparity in income and trial court did not make finding about rehabilitative plan).
Both permanent periodic and rehabilitative alimony are intended to enable the moving spouse to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed before the dissolution. Young v. Young, 677 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(permanent periodic alimony must place the movant in substantially the same financial position); Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(rehabilitative alimony must place the movant in substantially the same financial position).
The trial court in this case acknowledges that the wife could never afford to have the kind of home, boat and automobile she enjoyed during the marriage, and that even with retraining the wife will only-make a salary that is one-fifth of that enjoyed by the husband.
The alimony award is reversed and remanded with directions to reconsider the type and amount of alimony, taking into consideration the most recent income enjoyed by the parties.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ermined based upon the lower lifestyle which the parties enjoyed earlier in their marriage because his increased earning capacity was realized only toward the end of the marriage. A similar argument was rejected by the court in Cardillo v. Cardillo, 707 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In that case the evidence demonstrate that toward the end of the parties’ fourteen year marriage, the Husband had begun to experience success in his career and the family’s income had increased substantially. In requesting alimon…1 / 2
-
Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…imony for abuse of discretion. See Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The parties had been married sixteen years when the petition for dissolution was filed. This constitutes a long-term marriage, see Cardillo v. Cardillo, 707 So. 2d 350, 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), which creates a presumption in favor of permanent, periodic alimony, see Schlagel, 973 So. 2d at 676. It is undisputed that the husband earned substantial income in the years leading up to the dissolution proceedings and tha…
-
Walker v. Walker, 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…e, permanent periodic alimony may be appropriate when one spouse has given up a career to stay at home for a significant period of time to raise the parties’ children. See Knoff v. Knoff, 751 So. 2d 167, 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cardillo v. Cardillo, 707 So. 2d 350, 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). While there was conflicting evidence presented to the trial court regarding the type and the amount of alimony that the former wife needed to maintain her lifestyle and to rehabilitate herself, the trial court awarded only…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Young v. Martine Denn Young, 677 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Lanier v. Lanier, 594 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- McLEAN v. McLEAN, 652 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 588 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Pundik v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 597 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Pfaffko v. Pfaffko, 559 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Gray v. Gray, 658 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)