KARL REX BROOK, APPELLANT,
v.
EDITH WALTERS BROOK, 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.
Karl Rex Brook appeals an award of permanent alimony to his ex-wife Edith Walters of $650 per month. The appellate court affirms, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony based on the wife's substantial change in circumstances, particularly her loss of seniority with her former employer.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony of $650 per month. The court properly considered the appellee's substantial change in circumstances, particularly her loss of seniority with National Airlines, and the statutory factors for alimony awards under Florida law.
[1] A trial court has discretion to award either rehabilitative or permanent alimony in a dissolution of marriage proceeding.
[2] An award of permanent alimony is supported by competent substantial evidence when the record demonstrates a basis for the award and no abuse of discretion by the chancell…
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“It is within the discretion of the chancellor in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage to award either rehabilitative or permanent alimony.”
Establishes that trial courts have discretionary authority to choose between types of alimony awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdith Walters worked for National Airlines from 1959 until 1965 when she left to pursue a real estate venture with Karl Brook in Arkansas. She returne…
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 Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals an award of permanent alimony to the appellee, his ex-wife.
Appellee, Edith Walters, was an employee of National Airlines from 1959 until August 1965 when she terminated her employment therewith and agreed to go with the appellant, then her husband-to-be, to Arkansas and engage in a real estate venture. After nine or ten months, she returned to Miami and attempted to regain employment with her former employer. Several months thereafter appellee was rehired by National, but at a reduced salary and loss of seniority. A few months later in June 1967, she married the appellant and at his insistence again resigned. The parties separated in February 1972 and appel-lee filed her petition for dissolution of marriage. In May 1973 the chancellor entered an order dissolving the marriage and awarded the appellee $650 per month as permanent alimony based upon the following :
“The wife is entitled to receive permanent alimony. The parties have been married since June 30, 1967. They separated in February of 1972. No children were born of their marriage. The wife, who is forty-eight (48) years old, has had substantial change in circumstances by virtue of her loss of seniority with National Airlines, by whom she was employed prior to the marriage.
“The husband’s monthly income is $5,900.00, consisting of $2,500.00 from Golden Glades Enterprises, $1,400.00 from mortgage receivables, and projected monthly income from his medical practice of $2,000.00.”
On appeal, appellant ex-husband contends that the court erred in awarding permanent alimony rather than rehabilitative alimony. We cannot agree.
It is within the discretion of the chancellor in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage to award either rehabilitative or permanent alimony. Fla.Stat. § 61.08(1), F. S.A. After a thorough examination of the record, we find there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the award of $650 per month as permanent alimony to the appellee and thus, there has been no abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor. Further, as evidenced by the record, the chancellor properly considered the factor of the appellee’s loss of seniority with National Airlines [by whom she was employed prior to the marriage] in considering the award of permanent alimony in order to do equity and justice between the parties. Fla.Stat. § 61.08(2), F.S.A. We also noted that appellant ex-husband did not contest the amount of the award or his present ability to make the required monthly payments.
For the reasons cited hereinabove, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…s, 327 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Sommese v. Sommese, 324 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Nevins v. Nevins, 305 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975), cert. den. 327 So. 2d 33; Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Brook v. Brook, 289 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974), cert. den. 300 So. 2d 895; Ruhnau v. Ruhnau, 299 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Keller v. Keller, 308 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1974); Schultz v. Schultz, 290 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1974); Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 19…
-
Reback v. Reback, 296 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…her own statement that she had not worked since 1945. We therefore hold that rehabilitative alimony was not indicated by the present state of the record in this case. Belcher v. Belcher, Fla.App. 1974, 290 So. 2d 126; Brook v. Brook, Fla. App.1974, 289 So. 2d 766; Dash v. Dash, Fla.App. 1973, 284 So. 2d 407; Carmel v. Carmel, Fla.App. 1973, 282 So. 2d 6. [*544] The value of the property apportioned to the spouse seeking alimony is an important consideration in determining what amount of alimony, if any, shou…
-
Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…es. This impairment in a spouse’s otherwise modest employment capacities caused in part by the supporting spouse’s insistence that such work be terminated in favor of the family is a significant factor in sustaining an alimony award. Brook v. Brook, 289 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Added to this, is the husband’s impaired mental condition. According to the uncon-tradicted testimony of an industrial psychologist, Dr. Marquit, the husband is suffering from a mental disorder which will require at least a year…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence