SCOTT BISHOP, APPELLANT,
v.
BRIDGET BISHOP, 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 a dissolution of marriage appeal, the husband challenged the trial court's award of permanent alimony and retroactive child support. The appellate court affirmed the retroactive support award but reversed the permanent alimony award because the trial court erroneously classified a 12-year marriage as "long-term" when it fell in the "gray area" with no presumption for or against permanent alimony.
The trial court committed a clear legal error by finding the marriage was "long-term" with a presumption in favor of permanent alimony when the undisputed facts showed the marriage fell in the "gray area" with no such presumption. The award of permanent alimony is reversed and remanded for application of the correct legal standard. The retroactive application of alimony and child support is affirmed.
[1] The filing date of a petition for dissolution of marriage is the sensible date from which to measure the termination of the marriage, as it is the date on which the filin…
[2] A marriage of approximately twelve years falls within the "gray area" for purposes of alimony awards, meaning there is no presumption for or against permanent alimony.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 [c]ourt finds the parties' marriage to be long term, with the accompanying presumption in favor of permanent alimony.”
The trial court's erroneous legal conclusion that triggered the reversal; applied incorrect classification of a gray-area marriage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott and Bridget Bishop were married for just over twelve years before separating. Bridget filed a petition for dissolution shortly after separation,…
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 Gray Area Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
In this appeal, Scott Bishop (the Husband) challenges two aspects of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage: (1) the award of permanent alimony to Bridget Bishop (the Wife) and (2) the award of alimony and child support as applied retroactively to May 1, 2006. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm on the second issue without comment. However, we reverse on the first issue because the trial court applied the incorrect law concerning the term of the parties’ marriage.
It was undisputed below that the term of the parties’ marriage from its inception to the parties’ separation was just over twelve years. Shortly after separating, the Wife filed her petition seeking dissolution and assorted relief, including alimony. In this case, the trial court correctly chose the petition’s filing date as “the only sensible date from which to measure the termination of the marriage because on this date, the party filing the [pjetition avers that the marriage is irretrievably broken.” Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So. 2d 433, 436 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), overruled in part on other grounds by Zold v. Zold, 911 So. 2d 1222, 1234 (Fla.2005). Further, the parties do not dispute that the resulting term of their marriage qualifies it as being in the “gray area” and that there is thus no resulting presumption for or against an award of permanent alimony. See, e.g., Jessee v. Jessee, 961 So. 2d 1118, 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (121/2-year marriage); Gregoire v. Gregoire, 615 So. 2d 694, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (11-year marriage).
Nevertheless, the final judgment clearly indicates that “[t]he [cjourt finds the parties’ marriage to be long term, with the accompanying presumption in favor of permanent alimony.” This clear legal error cannot be regarded as a mere misnomer nor can it be attributed to a scrivener or word processing error for two reasons. First, when the parties proactively brought this error to the trial court’s attention on a motion for rehearing, the court denied the motion without comment. Second, we cannot determine from the face of the record and under the circumstances of this case whether the trial court would have awarded permanent alimony had it applied the correct standard. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse the award of permanent alimony.
On remand, the trial court must apply the correct legal standard applicable to a “gray area” marriage in determining whether an award of permanent alimony is appropriate. In doing so, the court in its discretion may consider further evidence.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
ALTENBERND and CANADY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abramovic v. Abramovic, 188 So. 3d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ondition the exemption on the former husband being current in his child support obligations, We review a trial court’s decision on which parent can claim a dependency exemption for income tax purposes for an abuse of discretion. Salazar v. Salazar, 976 So. 2d 1166, 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “Section 61.30(11)^X8), authorize[s] the circuit court to consider the impact of the dependency exemption in determining the child support award.” El-Hajji v. El-Hajji, 67 So. 3d 256, 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). “The custodia…
Authorities Cited
- Zold v. Zold, 911 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 2005)
- Gregoire v. Gregoire, 615 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Claudio Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Jessee v. Jessee, 961 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)