JOHN GEORGE FORSTER, III, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA ANN FORSTER, 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.
Court affirmed trial judge's finding of fraud and decision to treat two sequential marriages as continuous, but reversed the alimony award because the judge failed to make required statutory findings regarding the parties' current financial circumstances.
A trial court may treat two sequential marriages as one continuous marriage when fraud induces remarriage, but must determine alimony based on statutory factors and current financial circumstances rather than simply reinstating a prior award.
[1] When a trial court treats sequential marriages as continuous based on fraud, it must determine alimony by applying statutory factors to the parties' financial circumstanc…
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 parties divorced, remarried, and divorced again three months later. The appellee claimed she was induced by fraud to remarry because the appellant…
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 Statutory Factors For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
In this dissolution proceeding, the parties divorced, remarried and divorced again three months later. Appellee claimed that she was induced by fraud to remarry because Appellant wanted to avoid an alimony award entered after a default during the first divorce. The trial judge found fraud and elected to treat both marriages as one continuous marriage, which was within his discretion given the facts of this case. See Cox v. Cox, 659 So.2d 1051, 1055 n. 5 (Fla.1995). However, instead of determining alimony based on the circumstances at the time of trial, it appears that the trial judge simply reinstated the alimony award entered in the prior divorce decree without regard to the present financial positions of the parties. No finding was made as to the net income of the parties, the need of the wife and ability of the husband to pay, the standard of living of the parties during the marriage and other factors required by section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (2007). We, therefore, reverse the alimony award and remand this cause to the trial court to make such findings as required by the statute, based on the conditions as they existed at the time of trial.
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forster v. Forster, 52 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…iodic alimony, Case No. 5D09-2311, and attorney’s fees and costs, Case No. 5D09-3666. Although we have consolidated these cases for disposition in this opinion, they remain separate and distinct cases for all other purposes. In Forster v. Forster, 11 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), this court reversed and remanded the trial court’s alimony award to make the findings required by section 67.08(2), Florida Statutes (2006). Still dissatisfied, former husband again challenges the trial court’s order awarding fo…
Authorities Cited
- COX v. Kimi Lea COX, 659 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1995)