ANTHONY JAMES BALLATO, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBIN JO PINNIX-BALLATO, 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 appellate court reversed a trial court's award of $10,000 lump sum alimony because the wife expressly waived her alimony claim at the final hearing, holding that a court cannot award alimony when neither party presents evidence or argument on the issue.
A trial court errs in awarding lump sum alimony when the wife has expressly waived her alimony claim and neither party presents evidence or argument regarding alimony at the hearing.
[1] A trial court cannot award alimony when the obligee has expressly waived the claim and neither party presents evidence or argument regarding alimony at the hearing.
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 intelligenceThe Husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court's award of $10,000 lump sum alimony to the Wife and the …
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 Waiver Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Anthony James Ballato (the Husband) seeks review of the final judgment of dissolution of his marriage to Robin Jo Pinnix Ballato (the Wife). The Husband raises two challenges to the final judgment: (1) that the trial court erred in awarding the Wife $10,000 lump sum alimony and (2) that the trial court erred in finding that the parties’ home was a marital asset. Because the Wife waived her claim for alimony at the final hearing, we reverse the award of lump sum alimony. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the parties’ home was a marital asset without comment.
Although the Wife’s petition for dissolution contained a request for lump sum alimony, the Wife expressly waived any claim for alimony at the beginning of the final hearing. Regardless, the trial court awarded the Wife $10,000 lump sum alimony for support that was separate from the equitable distribution scheme. Because neither party presented evidence or argument regarding alimony at the hearing, the trial court erred in awarding alimony. Hu v. Hu, 432 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Herring v. Herring, 666 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We therefore reverse the trial court’s lump sum alimony award but otherwise affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Althea B. HU v. HU, 432 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Summer L. Herring, Jr. v. Herring, 666 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)