NELIA PURRINOS, APPELLANT,
v.
SERGIO PURRINOS, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of alimony to the wife in a sixteen-year marriage, holding that nominal permanent periodic alimony should be awarded despite the husband's current temporary unemployment, with the possibility of modification in the future.
A trial court abuses its discretion by denying alimony entirely when the payor spouse has a reasonable expectation of future employment and the payee spouse contributed to the marriage and lacks substantial assets.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying alimony entirely when the payor spouse has temporary unemployment but reasonable prospects of future employment, and nomina…
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 intelligence“we remand the case with directions to award her permanent periodic alimony in a nominal amount”
The court's directive to the trial court regarding the appropriate remedy for the wife's alimony claim.
The Purrinos dissolved a nearly sixteen-year marriage that produced three school-age children. The family's only substantial asset was the home, which…
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
The judgment below dissolved a near-sixteen year marriage, which produced three now-school-age children. The Purri-noses’ only substantial asset was the family home, which was severely under water, and was granted by agreement to the wife. Both parties worked during the marriage, with the husband typically earning substantially more than the wife. At the time of the final hearing however, he was involuntarily, temporarily unemployed but had the expectation of securing a position shortly thereafter.
Under these circumstances, we agree with the appellant wife’s sole contention on appeal: that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to award her alimony in any form. In recognition of the desirability of providing for the real likelihood that such an award, although not now appropriate because of the husband’s inability to pay, may become so in the future, we remand the case with directions to award her permanent periodic alimony in a nominal amount. See Gulbrandsen v. Gulbrandsen, 22 So.3d 640, 645 n. 8. (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (cases collected); Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So.2d 232, 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). See also Greene v. Greene, 256 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (ordering reservation of jurisdiction for subsequent award of alimony).
The judgment below is otherwise affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
-
Hedman v. Hedman, 97 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
Authorities Cited
- Greene v. Greene, 256 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Renato Bruno Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Terje Gulbrandsen v. Gulbrandsen, 22 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)