EVERETT RASHOTSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROCHELLE RASHOTSKY, 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 trial court erred as a matter of law by refusing to reconsider findings of fact on remand, thereby thwarting the appellate court's directive.
Following a prior appeal where the court found errors in the alimony award, the case was remanded for reconsideration. The trial judge on remand refus…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Everett Rashotsky challenges a trial court’s order on remand, as to the amount of his permanent periodic alimony obligation. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In Rashotsky v. Rashotsky, 782 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001),(Rashotsky I), Mr. Rashotsky appealed the amount of permanent periodic alimony awarded Rochelle Rashotsky in the final dissolution of the couple’s thirty some year marriage. Reviewing that judgment, this court found several errors mandating correction. We reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to make those corrections and to thereafter reconsider the alimony awarded. In that regard, we observed in part:
When awarding alimony, the trial court should attempt to place the parties “as close as possible to the prior lifestyle, given the financial resources available.” Laz v. Laz, 727 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, as this Court has recognized, “[a]s is often the case in divorce, income that was once used to maintain one household must now be used to maintain two. If this means that both parties must reduce their standard of living, so be it.” See De Luca v. De Luca, 722 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
Rashotsky, 782 So. 2d at 543-44.
Despite what we hoped was this court’s clearly expressed intention that the trial judge on remand review the parties’ needs and ability to pay, the trial judge decided that as a matter of law he could not reconsider the findings of fact as determined by the predecessor judge in Rashotsky I. That, we conclude was an error of law and amounted to a thwarting of this court’s directive.
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded. The trial judge should take evidence and consider the parties’ needs and ability to pay, in determining Mr. Rashotsky’s permanent periodic alimony obligation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LAZ v. LAZ, 727 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- DE Luca v. de Luca, 722 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Rashotsky v. Rashotsky, 782 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)