KELLI GILLILAND
v.
MICHAEL GILLILAND
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 a long-term marriage, a trial court cannot rebut the presumption favoring permanent periodic alimony based solely on a spouse's age, good health, and current income; additionally, a trial court must include specific factual findings in the final judgment regarding need, ability to pay, hourly rate, hours expended, and any reduction or enhancement factors when awarding attorney's fees.
[1] In a long-term marriage, there is a rebuttable presumption that permanent periodic alimony is appropriate, and a spouse's age, good health, and current earning capacity a…
[2] A trial court awarding durational alimony instead of permanent periodic alimony in a long-term marriage must make specific findings regarding whether the supported spouse…
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“Neither age nor a spouse's ability to earn some income will alone rebut the presumption that permanent periodic alimony is appropriate after a long-term marriage.”
Establishes that multiple factors beyond age and current earning capacity must be considered when determining whether to award permanent periodic alimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKelli Gilliland appealed a final judgment dissolving her long-term marriage to Michael Gilliland. The trial court awarded Wife durational alimony of $…
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 Findings Of Fact For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
KELLI GILLILAND,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-4100
MICHAEL GILLILAND,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 15, 2019
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Michael J. Rudisill, Judge.
Alex Finch, of Finch Law Firm, Longwood, for Appellant.
Stephanie Vollrath, of Vollrath Law, P.A., Oviedo, for Appellee.
WALLIS, J.
Kelli Gilliland (Wife) appeals the Final Judgment dissolving her long-term marriage to Michael Gilliland (Husband). While Wife raises several arguments on appeal, we only find merit in two. We agree that the trial court erred in failing to award Wife permanent periodic alimony and in reducing Wife's requested attorney's fees without making findings of fact in the Final Judgment. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions on these issues. We affirm in all other respects without further discussion.
The court did not further discuss alimony until it ordered Husband to pay Wife $1150 per month in durational alimony for thirty months. The Final Judgment does not further explain its rationale for awarding durational alimony instead of permanent periodic alimony. Although the court found that Wife is middle aged, in good health, and has the education and work experience to be self-supporting, it made no finding regarding whether Wife had an ongoing need for support on a permanent basis as required by section 61.08(7), Florida Statutes (2012). Additionally, it is unclear from the Final Judgment whether the trial court found that circumstances would change in the next thirty months that would allow Wife to support herself on a permanent basis without Husband's financial assistance.
Based on the Final Judgment, it appears the court relied solely on Wife's age, good health, and current income to find she was not entitled to permanent periodic alimony. Our Court has held these factors alone are insufficient to rebut the presumption that permanent periodic alimony is appropriate in a long-term marriage. See Motie, 132 So. 3d at 1213; Cerra, 820 So. 2d at 401. Under these circumstances, it was error to award Wife durational alimony instead of permanent periodic alimony. See Griffitts v. Griffitts, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D234 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 11, 2019) (reversing award of durational
Second, Wife argues that the court committed reversible error when it awarded her attorney's fees without including findings of fact in the Final Judgment. As Wife correctly argues, a trial court must make findings of fact in the Final Judgment when awarding attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding. Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So. 2d 985, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). "In addition to findings of the need for and ability to pay attorney's fees, '[t]he trial court must also make specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors.'" Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078, 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (quoting Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d 280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)). The fact that there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court's award does not obviate the need for specific factual findings in the judgment. Powell v. Powell, 55 So. 3d. 708, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
In the Final Judgment, the court notes that Wife testified she owes her attorney $20,000. Thereafter, the court ordered Husband to "contribute $10,000 to Wife's attorney towards fees and costs." Although the court subsequently sets forth the way Husband should pay Wife's attorney, there is no explanation for the court's rationale in awarding Wife half of the attorney's fees she requested. The Final Judgment also lacks any factual findings regarding Wife's need for fees, Husband's ability to pay those fees, Wife's attorney's hourly rate, the number of hours he expended, whether that number of hours was reasonable, or whether any factors support reducing or enhancing the fee amount. The failure to include these findings requires reversal of the attorney's fees award for the
For these reasons, we reverse the portion of the Final Judgment awarding Wife durational alimony and a portion of her attorney's fees and affirm in all other respects. On remand, the trial court shall enter an amended final judgment that classifies Husband's alimony obligation as permanent, not durational.1 In addition, the trial court shall hear evidence regarding attorney's fees and make the required findings in support of its ruling and include those findings in its order regarding attorney's fees.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED with Instructions.
ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nadia Kiswani v. Saleem Hafza, 403 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
-
Baron v. Baron, 300 So. 3d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
-
Speigner v. Speigner (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Young v. Martine Denn Young, 677 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Motie v. Anirude Motie, 132 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Elyse Fichtel v. Fichtel, 141 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 177 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Powell v. Selene Powell, 55 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Hedden v. Hedden, 240 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Nousari v. Nousari, 94 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)