ARLENE LAMONT, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD G. LAMONT, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of permanent periodic alimony to the wife, finding that although the trial court correctly identified her need for alimony, it erred in concluding the husband lacked the ability to pay when he had previously supported her during separation and earned approximately double her monthly income.
The trial court erred in denying permanent periodic alimony because although it correctly found the wife had a need, it incorrectly concluded the husband lacked the ability to pay, given that his monthly income was approximately double the wife's and he had previously paid her living expenses during their separation.
[1] A trial court errs in failing to award permanent periodic alimony when the receiving spouse has a clear need and the paying spouse has the ability to pay, even if the pay…
[2] Permanent periodic alimony is intended to enable a former spouse to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage.
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“the monetary needs of the receiving spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay”
Establishes the two primary legal considerations for awarding permanent periodic alimony under Florida law
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 were married for 23 years (1973-1996). At the time of the final hearing in May 2002, the wife was 66 years old and the husband was 69, bot…
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 Qualified Domestic Relations Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
Arlene Lamont, the wife in this dissolution action, seeks review of the Final Judgment dissolving her marriage to Donald G. Lamont. She raises three issues on appeal. With respect to one issue raised, we hold the trial court erred in failing to award the wife permanent periodic alimony. We affirm as to all other issues raised.
The parties were married in 1973 and separated in 1996, a period of twenty three years. At the time of the final hearing in May of 2002 the wife was sixty six years old and in relatively good health. The husband was sixty nine years old and in relatively good health.
From the date of the parties’ separation in 1996 to the date of the final hearing, the husband paid the wife’s living expenses, approximately $1300 a month. The wife also received, and continues to receive, $525 per month from social security. Those were her only sources of income. Although she worked for some periods outside the home, the wife was primarily a homemaker during the twenty-three year marriage.
The husband’s income consisted of a monthly social security payment in the amount of $993, a $1,000 a month salary from a driving school of which he is part owner, and approximately $2,000 from his retirement.
The trial court denied the wife’s request for alimony finding that she “certainly hás a need for alimony,” but the husband “has no real ability to pay.” As part of the equitable distribution scheme, the court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directing one-half of the husband’s pension payments to be distributed to the wife. As a result, pursuant to the Final Judgment and the QDRO, the wife has an income of $525 per month from social security and approximately $1,000 per month from the husband’s pension for a total monthly income of $1,525. The husband’s total monthly income is approximately $2,993.
Two primary considerations in determining permanent periodic alimony are “the monetary needs of the receiving spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay.” Weeks v. Weeks, 416 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also § 61.08(2)(a)-(g), Fla. Stat. (2002). Permanent alimony is awarded to enable the former spouse to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage. See Kneeht v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 978 (Fla.1994).
In this case, as a result of the trial court’s equitable distribution plan, the husband’s monthly income is approximately double that of the wife’s. Although the husband claims he is unable to pay alimony, it was pointed out below that when the parties were separated, he managed to pay the wife’s monthly expenses of $900 per month plus credit card payments of $400 per month. Under these circumstances, the trial court erred in concluding that the husband did not have the ability to pay alimony despite the wife’s clear need.
Accordingly, based on the facts of this case, we reverse and remand with instructions to determine the amount of permanent periodic alimony to be awarded to the wife in accordance with section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2002).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zarycki-Weig v. Weig, 25 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…5, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (“whether to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future lies within the court’s discretion”). The two primary considerations in determining permanent periodic alimony are need and ability to pay. Lamont v. Lamont, 851 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). A court should retain jurisdiction by awarding nominal permanent alimony only where there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of permanent alimony. Roy, 522 So. 2d at 76. “In ot…
-
Salazar v. Orestes Salazar, 976 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…e Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867, 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “Two primary considerations in determining permanent periodic alimony are ‘the monetary needs of the receiving spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay.’ ” Lamont v. Lamont, 851 So. 2d 898, 899-900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Weeks v. Weeks, 416 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)). In Lamont, the parties were married for twenty-three years. Id. at 899. During the separation, the husband had a total monthly income of $2,993 and the wi…
-
Anemey K. Huertas del Pino v. del Pino, 229 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ll retirement age will suffer a permanent reduction in benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(q)(l) (2015). It is well-established that Social Security benefits a party receives can be properly considered as income in awarding alimony. See Lamont v. Lamont, 851 So. 2d 898, 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). However, the question here is different: whether Social Security benefits should be ’imputed as income where a person is eligible to receive benefits, but has not yet applied for or received them. Here, Wife was not receiv…
Authorities Cited
- S & E Contractors, Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Carole v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Schlussler v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 416 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Weeks v. Lucius Henry Weeks, 416 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)