MARK MATTHEW HERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
LAKEISHA EVETTE SCROGGINS HERMAN, 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.
Mark Matthew Herman appeals a dissolution of marriage judgment in which the trial court indefinitely reserved jurisdiction to award alimony based on his former wife's kidney disease. The appellate court agrees that while reserving jurisdiction was proper, doing so indefinitely was an abuse of discretion given the parties' young ages and short marriage.
The trial court properly reserved jurisdiction to award alimony, but abused its discretion by doing so indefinitely. Jurisdiction should not be reserved without reasonable time limitations in cases involving young parties and relatively short marriages where the medical concern will likely arise, if at all, within a few years.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by indefinitely reserving jurisdiction to award alimony in a dissolution of marriage case involving a relatively short marriage and yo…
[2] A trial court should retain jurisdiction to award alimony when there is a likelihood of a future change in circumstances that would warrant such an award.
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 general rule is that the court should retain jurisdiction when there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of alimony.”
Establishes the standard for when courts may reserve jurisdiction over alimony matters
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 married in 1998 and separated approximately three and one-half years later in August 2001. At the final hearing, the former wife stipulate…
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mark Matthew Herman appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in indefinitely reserving jurisdiction to award alimony. We agree and reverse this portion of the judgment.
The parties were married in 1998 and separated approximately three and one-half years later, in August 2001. The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed in 2002. At the time of the final hearing, the former wife stipulated that she was not requesting a present award of alimony. Instead, she requested an indefinite reservation of jurisdiction to award alimony because of her kidney disease that was diagnosed during the marriage. The trial court found that there was a reasonable probability that she would have medical problems in the future and would be in need of support, and that the former husband would have the ability to pay. The court reserved jurisdiction on alimony for an indefinite amount of time.
The trial court’s decision to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16-17 (Fla.1976). The general rule is that the court should retain jurisdiction when there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of alimony. Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Barko v. Barko, 557 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
We find no error in the trial court’s decision to reserve jurisdiction, but, because this case does not involve a potential claim for permanent alimony, jurisdiction should not have been reserved indefinitely. The parties are young and they separated after a relatively short marriage. The problem the trial judge was attempting to address by reserving jurisdiction is a special medical problem that will arise, if at all, within the next few years. Under these circumstances, it would be unfair to hold the former husband to the indefinite possibility of being required to pay alimony at some time in the future without any limitations.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment to the extent that it contains an indefinite reservation of jurisdiction and remand the case to the trial court for a determination whether it is necessary to reserve jurisdiction, and, if so to establish a reasonable time limit on the reservation.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
BENTON, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Holley, 86 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…cited any cases holding that an indefinite reservation of jurisdiction is a violation of due process. In some cases, such a reservation is improper and subject to reversal on appeal from the order reserving jurisdiction. See, e.g., Herman v. Herman, 889 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gruner v. Westmark, 617 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Bovet v. Bovet, 563 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). But there i…
-
Anne Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…eservation of jurisdiction as to alimony, but only because the trial court did not apply a temporal constraint to such reservation. Contrary to the statement of the majority, the judgment is not lacking in finality. As we stated in Herman v. Herman, 889 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004): The trial court’s decision to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16-17 (Fla.1976). The general rule is that the court should retain jurisdiction when there…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Mirth K. Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Barko v. Barko, 557 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)