KAITLIN SPEARS, APPELLANT,

v.

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Winder v. Dian A. Winder, 152 So. 3d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
  …respective financial circumstances. See Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148, 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding it was error to defer awarding or denying permanent periodic alimony on ground husband did not have present ability to pay); Biskie v. Biskie, 37 So. 3d 970, 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that an award of nominal permanent alimony was appropriate where the wife established need and the husband did not have the current ability to pay, but his financial situation was likely to change in the future and…
• Demont v. Demont, 67 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
  …ves the trial court’s jurisdiction to revisit this matter if the parties’ respective financial circumstances change substantially, as the record suggests will happen. See Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Biskie v. Biskie, 37 So. 3d 970, 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Schmidt v. Schmidt, 997 So. 2d 451, 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Nourse v. Nourse, 948 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Because the wife has shown no abuse of discretion, we affirm the alimony awards while recognizing the tri…
• Anne Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
  …hat a trial court always errs by reserving jurisdiction on alimony, I cannot agree. I see no reason to exalt form over substance by requiring, as an alternative to a reservation of jurisdiction, an award of “nominal” alimony, as in Biskie v. Biskie, 37 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). I am, respectfully, unable to join in that part of the court’s opinion that apparently vacates the reservation of jurisdiction on child support. Neither party has even raised that issue in a brief. Because no one has posited a…

  ← 1 / 2 →