DENISE HALIKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FARLAN HALIKMAN, 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 alimony appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's award of permanent alimony to a wife who suffered a debilitating stroke, even though her parents' financial support supplemented the awarded amount. The court affirmed the trial court's discretionary decision to impute income from the wife's parents' continuing gifts when calculating her alimony needs.
The court affirmed the trial court's award of permanent alimony, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the exception to the general rule that voluntary financial assistance from family should not be considered, where the evidence showed the parents' gifts were continuing and ongoing rather than sporadic and would continue in the future.
[1] Income may be imputed based on gifts that are continuing and ongoing, not sporadic, where the evidence shows the gifts will continue in the future.
[2] A trial court's discretion in awarding alimony is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although acknowledging the general rule that it may only consider the financial resources of the parties and not the voluntary financial assistance of family and friends, the trial court applied the exception that income may be imputed based on gifts that are continuing and ongoing, not sporadic, where the evidence shows the gifts will continue in the future.”
Establishes the legal standard for when parental gifts can be considered as imputed income in alimony determinations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDenise Halikman and Farlan Halikman were in a long-term marriage. Denise suffered a debilitating stroke that left her dependent on others. She chose t…
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Denise Halikman challenges the trial court’s award of permanent alimony which, but for her parents’ largesse, would be inadequate to meet her needs. The facts underlying this lawsuit are tragic and the decision difficult. They involve a long-term marriage, a debilitating stroke that left the wife dependent upon others, and the generosity and care of her parents after the wife chose to permanently live with them in Texas. It serves no purpose to recite the testimony presented during three days of trial, other than to note that the primary issue was the determination of the amount of permanent alimony the wife required in light of her parents’ generosity-
This appeal focuses on the wife’s needs rather than the husband’s ability to pay.1 Although acknowledging the general rule that it may only consider the financial resources of the parties and not the voluntary financial assistance of family and friends, the trial court applied the exception that income may be imputed based on gifts that are continuing and ongoing, not sporadic, where the evidence shows the gifts will continue in the future. See Rogers v. Rogers, 824 So.2d 902, 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Our decision is guided by the standard of review: abuse of discretion. This writer would not have reached the same decision as the trial judge, nor perhaps would the other members of this panel. However, our judgment may not be substituted for the trial judge’s. “[Discretion is abused only where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980). We are unable to make such a finding in this case. Because the wife did not establish any other reversible error, we are compelled to affirm.
AFFIRMED.
MONACO, C.J., and PLEUS, JR., R„ Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hedstrom v. Hedstrom, 123 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…ard is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. E.g., Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980). Under this standard, a trial court’s decision should stand unless no reasonable judge would agree with the decision. Halikman v. Halikman, 43 So. 3d 913, 914 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award.4 [*153] Former Husband next argues that the court erred in basing the modification for the entire retroactive period on his salary at the time of trial and not taki…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Rogers v. Rogers, 824 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)