IRVIN J. LIGHTCAP, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY JEAN LIGHTCAP, 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 former husband appeals a trial court's award of nominal alimony ($1.00 per year) to the former wife after a thirty-year marriage. The appellate court affirms, holding that nominal alimony is appropriate in long-term marriages and serves a valuable purpose by preserving the wife's right to seek modification if the husband's income circumstances change.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding nominal alimony. In a long-term marriage, permanent alimony is normally appropriate and may take the form of a nominal amount, which preserves the former wife's right to seek modification if the former husband's financial circumstances change in the future.
[1] In long-term marriages, there is an initial presumption in favor of permanent, periodic alimony.
[2] Permanent alimony may be awarded in a nominal amount.
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“Because this is a long-term marriage, permanent alimony is normally appropriate.”
Establishes the presumption in favor of permanent alimony in long-term marriages.
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 over thirty years. During most of the marriage, the husband was highly skilled and well-paid, while the wife worked in cl…
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 Nominal Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Irvin J. Lightcap (“the former husband”) appeals the portion of the final judgment of dissolution that awards Betty Jean Lightcap (“the former wife”) nominal alimony of $1.00 per year. We affirm.
In this case, the parties were married for over thirty years. For most of the marriage, the husband was highly skilled and well paid. Concomitantly, the former wife worked in clerical positions, until the end of the marriage when she secured a well paying job. Subsequently, the former husband retired and contended that he is unable to work.
The trial court, however, found that the former husband was highly skilled and employable, but he voluntarily chose not to work despite his ability to do so. The trial court found that the former husband was capable of earning from $40,000 per year to $200,000 per year. The trial court entered final judgment and awarded the former wife nominal alimony of $1.00 per year.
On appeal, the former husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the former wife nominal alimony of $1.00 per year. He argues that the former wife has a much higher post-dissolution income and should not be entitled to any type of alimony. He further contends that he is unable to work due to medical reasons.
*260The former wife asserts that the former husband has no medical reason prohibiting him from employment. She also maintains that she has a right to nominal alimony in light of the long-term marriage. She asserts that this would give her the right to seek increased alimony should the former husband’s future income change and her financial condition deteriorate. We agree with the former wife.
Because this is a long-term marriage, permanent alimony is normally appropriate. See Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So.2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (stating that in the context of a long-term marriage, there is an initial presumption in favor of permanent, periodic alimony). Permanent alimony can be in the form of a nominal amount. 973 So.2d at 676.
A trial court’s decision on whether to award permanent, periodic alimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. 973 So.2d at 676. A trial court may consider the historic incomes of the parties, the length of the marriage, the marital assets, and the former wife’s needs when awarding a nominal amount of permanent alimony. See Blanchard v. Blanchard, 793 So.2d 989, 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the former wife nominal alimony. Over the course of this thirty-year marriage, the former husband earned more than the former wife. Although the former wife currently earns more than the former husband, the former husband has the ability to find employment. Nominal alimony would permit her to apply for modification upon a proper showing if and when the former husband achieves his full earning potential in the future. See Wing v. Wing, 429 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the former wife nominal alimony.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terje Gulbrandsen v. Gulbrandsen, 22 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…on, including the fact the trial judge is on site and has the ability to observe and evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses, the discretion to make either type of award is reposed in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Lightcap v. Lightcap, 14 So. 3d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). I am not aware of any case which holds that an appellate court possesses any such authority on the facts of this case.11 This case constitutes a good case study…
-
Turcotte v. Turcotte, 122 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…CA 2010). An award of nominal alimony is appropriate where the [*957] recipient spouse would be entitled to alimony but for the paying spouse’s current inability to pay, which is reasonably expected to change in the future. See Lightcap v. Lightcap, 14 So. 3d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (affirming an award of nominal alimony where the former wife was earning more than the former husband, but the former husband earned more than the former wife over the course of their marriage and had the potential for increa…
-
Marcie Koscher v. Koscher, 201 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…id not cover her basic needs and was not supported by the evidence in the record. This Court reviews an alimony award with the abuse of discretion stan [*742] dard. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980); Lightcap v. Lightcap, 14 So. 3d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “[W]here the record does not contain substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings regarding the amount of alimony awarded, the appellate court will reverse the award.” Vitro v. Vitro, 122 So. 3d 382,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Blanchard v. Maran L. Blanchard, 793 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Merritt v. State, 429 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Linna Fong Wing v. Wing, 429 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)