DIANA AYRA, APPELLANT,
v.
OSVALDO AYRA, 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.
Diana Ayra appealed a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Osvaldo Ayra, challenging the trial court's denial of permanent alimony, failure to allocate uncovered child medical expenses, and other relief. The appellate court reversed on the alimony and medical expense issues, finding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award nominal permanent alimony in a twenty-year marriage and by failing to address allocation of uncovered medical expenses.
The court reversed on the alimony and uncovered medical expenses issues. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to award at least nominal permanent alimony in a long-term twenty-year marriage given the Former Wife's potential future medical and housing expenses. The trial court also erred by failing to allocate the child's uncovered medical expenses according to the parties' respective child support obligation shares.
[1] In long-term marriages, there is an initial presumption in favor of permanent periodic alimony.
[2] A trial court's decision on whether permanent, periodic alimony is appropriate is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In the context of a long-term marriage, there is an initial presumption in favor of permanent periodic alimony.”
Establishes the legal standard favoring alimony in marriages of seventeen years or more.
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 twenty years. Diana Ayra (the Former Wife) sought permanent periodic alimony, arguing she had future medical and housing …
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 Long-Term Marriage Presumption cases and more on FLexlaw
Diana Ayra (the Former Wife) challenges the amended final judgment that dissolved her marriage to Osvaldo Ayra (the Former Husband). On appeal, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) failing to award her nominal permanent alimony; (2) failing to order the Former Husband to maintain medical and dental insurance for the minor child; (3) failing to allocate the child’s uncovered medical expenses; and (4) failing to require the Former Husband to pay her attorney’s fees and costs. We find merit only in the Former Wife’s contentions regarding alimony and allocation of the child’s uncovered medical expenses and therefore reverse. In all' other respects, we affirm the amended final judgment without discussion.
The parties’ marriage lasted twenty years. This is a long-term marriage. See § 61.08(4), Fla. Stat. (2010) (defining long-term marriage as “having a duration of seventeen years or greater”); see also Grill v. Grill, 123 So.3d 683, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (same). In the context of a long-term marriage, there is an initial presumption in favor of permanent periodic alimony. Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So.2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). In determining alimony, “[t]he primary factors for the trial court to consider are the needs of one spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay.” Id. (citing Hann v. Hann, 629 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). In determining need, the trial court is obligated to consider the factors in section 61.08(2). A trial court’s decision on whether permanent, periodic alimony is appropriate is subject to an abuse of discretion *144standard of review. Murray v. Murray, 598 So.2d 310, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
In considering the Former Wife’s need for alimony, the trial court stated, in part, that the Former Wife had the potential to earn an additional $5000 per month as a police officer. However, that finding is not supported by the record. The testimony at the final hearing did not show that this was a viable option for the Former Wife. Further, the Former Wife’s testimony established that there is a likelihood her medical and housing expenses will increase after the marriage is dissolved. Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to conclude that the Former Wife did not have the need for any alimony.
The long-term duration of the parties’ marriage, coupled with the potential future needs of the Former Wife in the form of rent and medical expenses warrant at least a nominal amount of permanent alimony. See Nourse v. Nourse, 948 So.2d 903, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (concluding “that the historic incomes of the parties, the length of the marriage, and the wife’s potential future needs require an award of at least a nominal amount of permanent alimony”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to award at least a nominal amount of alimony per year in order to retain jurisdiction to reconsider alimony in the future.
As for the child’s uncovered medical expenses, the Former Wife argues, and the Former Husband concedes, that the trial court erred because it failed to address this item in the amended final judgment. On remand, the trial court must allocate these expenses in accordance with the parties’ respective shares of the child support obligation. See Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So.3d 763, 764-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that any uncovered medical expenses should be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation unless the final judgment contains a logical rationale to the contrary).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berger v. Berger, 201 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…tion in favor of permanent alimony after a long-term marriage still exists, See Sherlock v. Sherlock, 199 So. 3d 1039, 1043, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1601, D1602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Motie v. Motie, 132 So. 3d 1210, 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Ayra v. Ayra, 148 So. 3d 142, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Broemer v. Broemer, 109 So. 3d 284, 289 (Fla, 1st DCA 2013). We stand by that recognition. b. The Court’s Findings Were Insufficient to Rebut the Presumption in Favor of Permanent Alimony The wife next argues that the cour…
-
Irene Banks v. Randy Banks, 168 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…yment status at the time of the final hearing, and the Husband’s substantially greater earning power, the trial court on remand should consider making an award of at least a nominal amount of permanent periodic alimony to the Wife. See Ayra v. Ayra, 148 So. 3d 142, 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Gulledge v. Gulledge, 82 So. 3d 1113, 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Nourse v. Nourse, 948 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Biskie v. Biskie, 37 So. 3d 970, 973 (Fla.1st DCA 2010). C. The Military Retirement Pay Award With re…
-
Tomek Mikler v. Agata Mikler (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…with her future residence; and that when she moved from the apartment, she would rent it and receive about $900 a month. "In the context of a long-term marriage, there is an initial presumption in favor of permanent periodic alimony." Ayra v. Ayra, 148 So. 3d 142, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). "The purpose of permanent periodic alimony is to provide for the needs and necessities of life for a former spouse as they were established during the m…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Nourse v. Nourse, 948 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Myron Lee Murray v. Murray, 598 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Fenner v. Fenner, 629 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Hann v. Hann, 629 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Leslie v. Grill, 123 So. 3d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)