STACEY MACIEKOWICH, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL MACIEKOWICH, 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 court reversed a dissolution of marriage judgment, finding that the trial court erroneously awarded the former wife only $1 per year in permanent alimony despite finding she had established a "compelling case" for her need. The court held that the record contained sufficient evidence of both the former wife's need and the former husband's ability to pay to support a meaningful alimony award.
The trial court erred in awarding only $1 per year in permanent alimony. The record established both the former wife's need for alimony (demonstrated by the fact that the former husband was paying all household bills and her current unemployment and health issues) and the former husband's ability to pay (as shown in the child support guidelines worksheet and his financial affidavit), which together support a meaningful alimony award.
[1] A court errs in awarding only nominal alimony when it finds a compelling case for need in a long-term marriage, but fails to establish an actual amount of need.
[2] Reversal of a final judgment is appropriate when an error is apparent on the face of the record, even in the absence of a transcript.
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“The two primary elements to be considered when determining permanent periodic alimony are the needs of one spouse for the funds and the ability of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding permanent alimony under Florida law.
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 nearly twenty years. The former wife stayed home with the children during the marriage, is currently unemployed, and has …
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 Need For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, agreeing with the former wife that the court erred in awarding her only $1 per year of alimony when it found that she had established a “compelling case” for her need for permanent alimony.
Although there is no transcript of proceedings, reversal is appropriate where the error is apparent on the face of the record. See Quinones v. Quinones, 182 So.3d 702, 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). In its final judgment, the court found that while the former wife proved her need for permanent alimony in this nearly twenty-year marriage, no actual amount of her need was established. Both parties agree that the former wife stayed home with the children during, the marriage, is currently unemployed, and has significant health issues.
“The two primary elements to be considered when determining permanent periodic alimony are the needs of one spouse for the funds and the ability of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds.” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980) (emphasis added). The record shows that the former husband was paying all the household bills, *625pursuant to the parties’ agreement, which, in and of itself, would establish some amount of need. Further, although the court also found that the former wife had failed to establish an ability to pay on the part of the former husband, the court attached to the judgment the agreed child support guidelines worksheet showing the former husband’s level of income, while the former husband’s sworn financial affidavit also provided evidence of his ability to pay. Together these facts would establish some amount of need on the part of the former wife and ability to pay on the part of the former husband. Thus, the record does not support the finding that the former wife provided no such evidence. To refuse to award anything but $1 per year in permanent alimony in these circumstances was error.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings on the issue of permanent alimony. The court may wish to take additional evidence to fashion an equitable award in this case.
CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Quinones v. Quinones, 182 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)