MILAGROS RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERTO LORENZO, 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.
Former wife appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage, challenging the trial court's denial of alimony and seeking damages for post-judgment events. The appellate court affirms, finding the denial of permanent periodic alimony was not an abuse of discretion and lacking jurisdiction over post-judgment claims.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying permanent periodic alimony because a rebuttable presumption against such awards exists in short-term marriages, the former wife failed to rebut this presumption, and she provided no trial transcript for appellate review. The appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the former wife's claims for psychological damages based on post-judgment events and post-judgment rulings unrelated to the final judgment of dissolution.
[1] A rebuttable presumption exists against awarding permanent periodic alimony in short-term marriages.
[2] An appellate court generally cannot determine whether the evidence supports a trial court's rulings without a transcript of the relevant proceedings.
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“When considering whether to award permanent periodic alimony in a dissolution of marriage proceeding involving a short-term marriage, there exists a rebuttable presumption against making such an award.”
Establishes the legal standard applicable to the former wife's alimony request in this short-term marriage case.
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 approximately four years when the dissolution petition was filed in August 2014, and six years when the final judgment wa…
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 Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Milagros Rodriguez (“the former wife”) appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Alberto Lorenzo (“the former husband”) (collectively, “the parties”). We affirm.
On August 14, 2014, the former wife filed a petition to dissolve the parties’ four-year marriage, seeking, in part, an award of alimony and the resolution of matters pertaining to their two minor children. The parties ultimately entered into a stipulated agreement regarding child custody, visitation, and decision-making issues regarding the children, but they were unable to agree on the remaining issues, which were decided by the trial court. A final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered on July 1, 2016.
The former wife’s appeal focuses on the trial court’s denial of her request for alimony. However, the former wife additionally seeks from this Court an award for “psychological damage” and others similarly claimed damages related to events occurring after the entry of the final judgment and the filing of the notice of appeal. She also requests that this Court review rulings made by the trial court subsequent to the filing of her notice of appeal and, therefore, unrelated to the final judgment.
The former wife requested an award of permanent periodic alimony or, in the alternative, bridge the gap, durational, rehabilitative, or lump sum alimony. When considering whether to award permanent periodic alimony in a dissolution of marriage proceeding involving a short-term marriage, there exists a rebuttable presumption against making such an award. See Greenwald v. Rivkind-Greenwald, 31 So.3d 250, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). The parties were married for four years when the dissolution of marriage petition was filed, and for six years when the judgment granting dissolution was rendered. Thus, the parties’ marriage was a short-term marriage. Because the standard of review is abuse of discretion, see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980), and the former wife has not provided this Court with a transcript of the relevant proceedings, the former wife has neither rebutted the presumption against permanent periodic alimony nor shown an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) (holding that the trial court’s ruling is presumed correct, and where no transcript is provided, the appellate court generally cannot determine whether the evidence supports the trial court’s rulings). The absence of a transcript also precludes review of the remaining forms of alimony initially requested by the former wife.
As to the “psychological damages” the former wife seeks from this Court based on acts allegedly committed after the entry of the final judgment and the other post-judgment rulings made by the trial court that are unrelated to the final judgment of dissolution, this Court clearly lacks jurisdiction. See Geraci v. Kozloski, 377 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Smith v. Lydie Ladouceur Smith (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…gful review of whether the trial court abused its discretion in this regard”) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979); Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)).…
-
Cleto Marcello Cardona v. Casas, 225 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…hey are not errors at all, or we cannot review whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed harmful error without a transcript or reconstructed record of the multi-day dissolution and attorney’s fees hearings. See Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So. 3d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Because the standard of review is abuse of discretion, and the former wife has not provided this Court with a transcript of the relevant proceedings* the former wife has neither rebutted the presumption against permanent pe…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Geraci v. Kozloski, 377 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Greenwald v. Rivkind-Greenwald, 31 So. 3d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)