SUZANNE A. WESTBERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWSON L. WESTBERRY, II, 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.
Suzanne Westberry appealed the trial court's dissolution of her marriage, challenging the alimony award and denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed the alimony provisions, finding the trial court erroneously imposed rehabilitative alimony without evidence of a rehabilitation plan and imposed an unsupported automatic termination provision. The court also reversed the denial of attorney's fees.
The court held that the trial court erred in imposing rehabilitative alimony absent evidence of a rehabilitation plan, erred in automatically terminating alimony at age 62 without evidentiary support, and improperly denied the motion for attorney's fees. The alimony provisions were reversed and remanded for reconsideration, and the denial of attorney's fees was reversed for reconsideration under the Rosen standard.
[1] An automatic termination of a permanent alimony award is improper absent evidence that the recipient spouse's ability to support themselves will change at the termination…
[2] Imposing rehabilitative alimony is erroneous without evidence of a specific rehabilitation plan.
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“Without evidence that Mrs. Westberry's ability to support herself would change at that time, the automatic termination of this alimony award was improper.”
Establishes that automatic termination of alimony must be supported by evidence of changed circumstances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuzanne and Lawson Westberry were in a long-term marriage. The trial court awarded permanent, periodic alimony with an automatic termination provision…
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 Bridge-The-Gap Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Suzanne A. Westberry appeals the final judgment dissolving her long-term marriage to Lawson L. Westberry, II. She presents several issues related to the alimony award and the denial of her motion for attorney’s fees. She contends that the trial court erroneously imposed rehabilitative alimony, thus resulting in an inadequate permanent alimony award; erroneously ordered an automatic termination of the permanent alimony award; and improperly denied her motion for attorney’s fees. We agree with Mrs. Westberry’s arguments and, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Concerning alimony, the final judgment provided that permanent, peri- odie alimony would terminate automatically when Mrs. Westberry becomes 62 years old. The termination provision was unsupported by any evidence at trial and therefore was erroneous. Without evidence that Mrs. Westberry’s ability to support herself would change at that time, the automatic termination of this alimony award was improper. See Rogers v. Rogers, 622 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
The trial court also erred by imposing rehabilitative alimony absent evidence of a rehabilitation plan. See Campbell v. Campbell, 685 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
We reject Mr. Westberry’s argument that the court was in effect imposing bridge-the-gap alimony pursuant to Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). There is no finding nor record support that the trial court intended this alimony amount to “assist the transition of a spouse from marital status to single status.” 730 So. 2d at 752.
In light of these problems, we reverse the alimony award and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. Because the trial court improperly awarded rehabilitative alimony, Mrs. Westberry’s contention that the amount of the permanent alimony is inadequate appears to be Well taken. When reconsidering the alimony, the trial court should ensure that the total award is adequate. See § 61.08, Fla.Stat. (1997).
Finally, we reverse the denial of Mrs. Westberry’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997). On remand, the trial court shall reconsider her motion in accordance with Rosen.
Judgment of dissolution of marriage affirmed in part, provisions addressing alimony reversed; denial of Mrs. Westber-ry’s motion for attorney’s fees reversed; remanded for further consideration.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Heights, Inc. v. Mustafa Atac, 730 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Rogers v. Rogers, 622 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Campbell v. Coy Franklin Campbell, 685 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)