KATHERINE LAWSON BATEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK HOWARD BATEMAN, 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 appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding rehabilitative alimony for two years instead of permanent alimony.
The parties divorced, and the trial court awarded the appellant rehabilitative alimony for two years. The appellant contended this was insufficient an…
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.
This is an appeal from a final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties and awarding rehabilitative alimony to appellant for a period of two years. The appellant’s contention on appeal is that the lower court erred in failing to award permanent alimony to appellant.
We have heard oral argument in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. Upon our consideration thereof, it is our conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in the denial of permanent alimony. The record clearly illustrates that there was a fair and equal distribution of property and assets accumulated by the parties during the marriage and that the appellant is in good health and possesses employment potential and capability sufficient to provide for her own needs.
As the courts of this State have reiterated numerous times since the 1971 enactment of the new “no fault” dissolution of marriage law, the recitation of marriage vows neither diminishes a wife’s capacity for self-support, nor does it give her a vested right in her husband’s earnings for the remainder of her life. Beard v. Beard, 262 So. 2d 269 (Fla.App.1st, 1972). The 1971 enactment places both parties to the marriage on a basis of complete equality as partners sharing equal rights and obligations in the marriage relationship and sharing equal burdens in the event of dissolution. Thigpen v. Thigpen, 277 So. 2d 583 (Fla.App.1st, 1973).
Appellant having failed to adequately demonstrate an abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.
Appellant’s motion for attorney fees in connection with this appeal is denied.
Affirmed.
JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and SPEC-TOR and BOYER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roscoe Eugene Caldwell v. Caldwell, 383 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…eveals that the wife’s age, financial assets, and present capacity to undertake gainful employment amply support the reasonableness of the trial court’s discretion. See Griffith v. Griffith, 376 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and Bateman v. Bateman, 301 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Finally, with regard to the husband’s obligation to pay for the wife’s indebtedness for necessities, there has been no showing of any abuse of discretion. In conclusion, however, we find that the trial court did err in its dete…
-
Mummaw v. Mummaw, 325 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…actment places both parties to the marriage on a basis of complete equality as partners sharing equal rights and obligations in the marriage relationship and sharing equal burdens in the event of dissolution.” Bateman v. Bateman, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 301 So. 2d 472 at 473. This equality includes equality of liability obligation and responsibility. We, therefore, conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the husband’s motion for attorney’s fees should be granted. Inasmuch as the trial court is in a b…
-
Robinson v. Robinson, 332 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Lee v. Lee, Fla.App.1975, 309 So. 2d 26; Fesak v. Fesak, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 47; Bateman v. Bateman, Fla.App.1974, 301 So. 2d 472; Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, Fla.App.1974, 300 So. 2d 694, and Cardillo v. Cardillo, Fla.App.1972, 269 So. 2d 773.…
Authorities Cited
- Manly W. Thigpen v. Thigpen, 277 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Armer E. White, 262 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Beard v. Beard, 262 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)