ELIZABETH CALLIGARICH, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK CALLIGARICH, 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.
Elizabeth Calligarich appeals a divorce judgment regarding alimony and property division. The court reversed the trial court's award of lump sum alimony and its decision awarding the marital home entirely to the husband, finding these determinations unsupported by the facts and law.
The court held that lump sum alimony was inappropriate and should be replaced with permanent alimony of $200 per month, subject to modification upon changed circumstances. The court also held that the husband's transfer of the Virginia property to the marital home did not constitute special equities sufficient to award him sole ownership, and the home should be titled in both parties' names as tenants in common.
[1] Lump sum alimony is justified only where it serves a reasonable purpose, such as rehabilitation, or where the marriage's duration or the parties' financial position would…
[2] A spouse's need and the other spouse's ability to pay are the correct factors to consider when determining alimony.
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“Lump sum alimony is justified only where it serves a reasonable purpose, such as rehabilitation, or where the marriage's duration or the parties' financial position would make such an award advantageous to both. The wife's need and the husband's ability are still the correct equation to follow.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding alimony and why lump sum awards must serve a justified purpose.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Calligarich, age 61 and permanently disabled, has sole income of less than $100 monthly from Social Security disability payments. Frank Call…
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 Presumption Of Gift cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff wife objects to the alimony and property settlement provisions contained in a divorce judgment.
That decree awarded plaintiff lump sum alimony in the sum of $3,600 to be paid $200 monthly for eighteen months. Defendant husband was found to have special equities in the marital domicile, owned as a tenancy by the entirety, and was awarded its complete ownership. We feel that neither of these determinations were supported by the facts or law. We reverse them.
The extracted salient facts reveal that plaintiff is sixty-one years old and permanently disabled. Her sole income of less than $100 monthly is derived from Social Security disability payments. Defendant is seventy-one years old, retired, and draws $832 monthly in pension payments, plus free medical care and commissary privileges. The marriage endured sixteen years.
It is our opinion that, due to plaintiff’s health, age, lack of assets and income, it is highly unlikely she will be able to support herself in eighteen months. Lump sum alimony is justified only where it serves a reasonable purpose, such as rehabilitation, or where the marriage’s duration or the parties’ financial position would make such an award advantageous to both. The wife’s need and the husband’s ability are still the correct equation to follow. See 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 161; Schultz v. Schultz, Fla.App. 1967, 197 So.2d 310, and Arrington v. Arrington, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 473. We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s alimony should be made permanent, subject, of course, to possible modification in the event of a legally sufficient change in the circumstances of the parties.
Defendant husband was also awarded the marital domicile based on his alleged special equities therein. The marital domicile had been purchased using the proceeds from the sale of the couple’s Virginia home, which had been transferred to an estate by the entireties by defendant shortly after the 1954 marriage. An ordinary conveyance to the entireties of one spouse’s property is presumed a gift. Such a presumption is not easily overcome. The *62case at hand offers no facts to support this presumption’s rebuttal. See Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 825.
We, therefore, reverse the order herein appealed and remand with instructions to change the lump sum alimony to permanent alimony in the amount of $200.00 per month and to place title of the former marital domicile in both parties’ names, as tenants in common, as provided by F.S. 1969, section 689.15, F.S.A.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
REED, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)…r marital home as lump sum alimony, the award of permanent periodic alimony, and attorney’s fees. We find conflict with Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949); Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); and Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). We have jurisdiction.1 We reverse the district court and reinstate the judgment of the trial court. This dissolution proceeding terminated a thirty-three-year marriage, the parties having married when the wife was seventeen and…
-
McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…DCA 1974), cert. dism. 307 So. 2d 186; Dash v. Dash, 284 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973); Suter v. Suter, 279 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), cert. den. 284 So. 2d 396; Sharpe v. Sharpe, 267 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972); Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). We refer the reader to Florida Dissolution of Marriage (1976) Florida Bar C.L.E., p. 391, et. seq., for a detailed analysis of the cases cited.…
-
Tedford J. Cann v. Margery M. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…ere the marriage’s duration or the parties’ financial position would make such an award advantageous to both. The wife’s need and the husband’s ability are still the correct equation to follow. * * * ” (Calligarich v. Calligarich, Fla.App. 4th 1971, 256 So. 2d 60, 61). Although lump sum alimony is distinguished from periodic alimony, lump sum alimony may be paid in installments. (Morris v. Morris, supra) However, in order for it to be categorized as lump sum, it must be for a definite amount and must have s…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Emil Rossodivita v. The King's Surf Ltd., 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Wendall P. Arrington v. Arrington, 150 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Godesa Schultz v. Schultz, 197 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)