SHAWN E. STEPHENS, APPELLANT,
v.
ELAINE A. STEPHENS, 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.
The husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution awarding permanent periodic alimony to the wife. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court's own factual findings—establishing the wife's ability to obtain full-time employment in graphic design—contradicted and rebutted the presumption supporting permanent alimony.
The trial court abused its discretion in awarding permanent periodic alimony because its factual findings rebutted the presumption of entitlement to permanent alimony. The case was remanded for consideration of rehabilitative alimony instead, which would provide a reasonable period for the wife to obtain full-time employment.
[1] A trial court's factual findings must support its award of permanent periodic alimony.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are contrary to its order.
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“Although these findings rebutted the presumption of entitlement, the trial court awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony. This award was an abuse of discretion”
Establishes the core holding that awarding permanent alimony despite factual findings rebutting the presumption constitutes abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a long-term marriage. The wife required $20,000-$23,000 annually to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. The 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 Long-Term Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Shawn E. Stephens, the husband, challenges the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution, which awarded permanent periodic alimony to Elaine A. Stephens, the wife. Because the trial court’s factual findings do not support its award of permanent periodic alimony, we reverse.
In the final judgment of dissolution, the trial court found that this was a long-term marriage and that the wife required $20,000 $23,000 a year to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage. This created a rebuttable presumption that the wife was entitled to permanent alimony. See Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). However, the trial court also made the following factual findings:
Although the Court believes that the wife, through the marriage, has incurred and suffered a great degree of pain from her injuries [that were the result of multiple car accidents], there was no medical diagnosis of a disability presented to the Court establishing the wife incapacitated for full-time employment. The Court further finds the medical condition of the wife does not preclude the wife from gainful full-time employment in the area for which the wife has received extensive rehabilitative training and a rehabilitative college education. There was no indication at final hearing that the wife was suffering any emotional infirmities that would prevent full-time employment.
The wife has the ability to be employed in the field of graphic design at a greater pay rate and for more hours than the wife’s current part-time employment of $7.50 per hour for 21 hours per week. However, the evidence further shows that the wife has made little effort whatsoever to obtain further, substantial, full-time employment in the field of graphic design. The wife has not sent out resumes, applications for employment, nor sought any interviews for gainful, full-time employment. The wife does have the capability and capacity to earn more by use of more diligent effort. The credible evidence presented at trial established that the wife has the ability to earn an hourly wage of $12.00 to $13.00 per hour for employment in the graphic design arena and to work full time.
Although these findings rebutted the presumption of entitlement, the trial court awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony. This award was an abuse of discretion, cf. Pierre-Louis v. Pierre-Louis, 715 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding trial court abused discretion when factual findings were contrary to order making parties equally responsible for income tax liability in year of separation).
However, because the wife is not currently working full time nor is she earning $12 an hour, the trial court’s findings may support an award of rehabilitative alimony for a reasonable period of time to allow her to obtain full-time employment. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s award of permanent periodic alimony and remand for the trial court’s consideration of appropriate rehabilitative alimony.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elyse Fichtel v. Fichtel, 141 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…of the evidence. Rather, the test is whether the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence.’ ”) Moreover, the trial court’s findings were sufficient to rebut the presumption favoring permanent alimony. Cf. Stephens v. Stephens, 807 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (trial court’s finding that former wife has the ability to work full-time rebutted the presumption of entitlement to permanent periodic alimony). Thus, we affirm the Final Judgment with respect to the durational alimony award…
-
Marie-Johanne O. Brezault v. Gerry Brezault, 199 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…respect to long-term marriages). Notably, the trial court made no findings of'facts supporting a conclusion that permanent alimony was not appropriate in this case. § 61.08(1), (2), [*523] (7) and (8), Fla. Stat. (2015) ; cf. Stephens v. Stephens, 807 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that the trial court’s finding that former wife has the ability to work full-time rebutted the presumption of entitlement to permanent periodic alimony). As such, we reverse the award of alimony and remand for the t…
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Pierre-Louis v. Wilmard Pierre Louis, 715 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)