SCOT R. PETERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSEMARIE PETERSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a permanent alimony award because the trial court failed to make required statutory findings of fact regarding the marital standard of living under section 61.08, Florida Statutes.
A trial court must make specific statutory findings of fact, including the standard of living attained during the marriage, before awarding permanent alimony.
[1] A trial court awarding permanent alimony must make findings of fact regarding the standard of living attained during the marriage as required by section 61.08, Florida St…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties.”
Definition of permanent periodic alimony from Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980).
Scot Peterson appealed a final judgment granting permanent alimony and attorney's fees to his former spouse Rosemarie Peterson.…
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 Standard Of Living During Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment granting permanent alimony and an order granting attorney’s fees. We affirm the grant of attorney’s fees, but reverse and remand the grant of permanent alimony for the trial court to make the findings of fact required by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2001).
“Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties.” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980). Before the trial court may award permanent alimony, section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2001) requires it to make certain statutory findings including the standard of living attained during the marriage. The trial court here did not make any finding of fact regarding the marital standard of living. See § 61.08(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). This Court cannot review the reasonableness of the permanent alimony award without this requisite finding of fact. See Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to make sufficient findings of fact for this Court to review the appropriateness of the alimony award.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, KLEIN, JJ., and HAWLEY, ROBERT A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ng of the parties during the marriage inhibits this court from making a proper determination as to whether the bridge-the-gap alimony was appropriate or that the presumption of entitlement to permanent alimony was rebutted. See Peterson v. Peterson, 818 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(reversing and remanding for requisite finding of fact to be made as to the standard of living of the parties during the marriage); Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(holding that trial court is required to inclu…
-
Scot R. Peterson v. Peterson, 882 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…er assessing attorney’s fees and.costs against the former husband, but reversed the alimony award to the former wife, and remanded for the trial court to make the findings required by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2001). See Peterson v. Peterson, 818 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). On remand, the trial court entered an Amended Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, nunc pro tunc to April 4, 2001. The court’s original order regarding the alimony award remained unchanged, with the exception that the fol…
-
Scot R. Peterson v. Peterson, 929 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…FARMER, J. This is the third appeal in this dissolution of marriage case concerning the award of permanent alimony. Peterson v. Peterson, 818 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Peterson v. Peterson, 882 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). This appeal is from a successor judge’s attempt to comply with our directive for more specific findings relating to the alimony issue. From the husband’s net monthly in…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Bart L. Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)