HELEN KAY GRIMES, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID ALLEN GRIMES, 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 a divorce case involving a twelve-year marriage, the trial court denied the wife's request for permanent periodic alimony, relying heavily on the age disparity between the parties and the husband's lack of responsibility for the wife's health problems. The appellate court reversed, holding that the age difference was not a proper basis for denying alimony and that the trial court failed to adequately consider the wife's serious health conditions that jeopardized her employment.
The appellate court held that the trial court improperly relied on the age disparity between the parties and the husband's lack of direct responsibility for the wife's health problems in denying permanent periodic alimony. The court reversed, finding that the wife's serious health conditions, including cancer and depression that jeopardized her employment, were critical factors that the trial court failed to adequately consider.
[1] A marriage of approximately twelve years is neither a short-term nor a long-term marriage, thus creating no presumption for or against permanent alimony.
[2] A trial court's denial of permanent periodic alimony may be reversed if it relies to an undue extent on irrelevant matters, such as the age disparity between the parties.
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“Our review of the record and the final order convinces us that the trial court relied to an undue extent on the age disparity between the parties in denying permanent periodic alimony. That appellee chose to marry a woman sixteen years older than himself is not an appropriate basis on which to deny permanent periodic alimony, in our view.”
Establishes that age disparity is not a valid factor for denying permanent alimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHelen Kay Grimes and David Allen Grimes were married for approximately twelve years. Both parties worked during the marriage. The husband was 21 years…
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In denying appellant’s request for permanent periodic alimony, the trial court correctly noted that as this was a marriage of approximately twelve years, i.e., neither a short term nor a long term marriage, there was no presumption for or against permanent alimony, citing Zeigler v. Zeigler, 635 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Further, the court’s findings that both parties worked during the marriage, that appellant made no unique contribution to the education or career building of appellee, that appellee assisted in raising appellant’s children, and that appellant has had significant health problems are supported in the record. In ruling on the issue of permanent alimony, however, the court relied to an extent upon the following observations:
Respondent/husband was 21 years of age at the time of the marriage, 16 years younger than his wife, almost a kid marrying a mature adult woman with three children.
There is no evidence that Respondent/husband ... was physically abusive to petitioner or her children, was an alcoholic, or did anything to contribute to Petitioner/wife’s mental condition or problems other than deciding he did not want to be married to her any longer, and that is not sufficient reason to lay blame on Respondent/husband for her depression.
Based on the above listed circumstances the Court cannot justify saddling respondent/husband.. with permanent periodic alimony for the rest of Petitioner/wife’s life.
Our review of the record and the final order convinces us that the trial court relied to an undue extent on the age disparity between the parties in denying permanent periodic alimony. That appellee chose to marry a woman sixteen years older than himself is not an appropriate basis on which to deny permanent periodic alimony, in our view. Neither is it determinative whether appellee was directly responsible for appellant’s health problems. The critical factor to be considered was that appellant was having serious health problems, including cancer of the eye and serious depression which, at the time of hearing, placed her ability to continue her employment in real jeopardy.- See § 61.08(2), Florida Statutes; see generally, Bain v. Bain, 553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In our view, the court did not give this factor adequate consideration, and relied on irrelevant matters in denying permanent periodic alimony.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
JOANOS, LAWRENCE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ, CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Johnson, 847 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…which were clearly established justifying an award of perma [*1164] nent alimony, were the former wife’s serious health and mental problems, her lack of substantial financial resources, and her diminished ability to earn income. In Grimes v. Grimes, 770 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), the court reversed a trial court’s denial of permanent alimony to the former wife after an approximate twelve-year marriage. The former wife, as in this case, was having serious heath problems, including cancer and depression, w…
Authorities Cited
- Ogden Aviation Servs. & Alexsis, Inc. v. Khalid DAR, 635 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Zeigler v. Zeigler, 635 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Addison L. Bain v. Ingeborg K. Bain, 553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)