PAMELA KING, APPELLANT,
v.
JEFFREY V. KING, 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.
Pamela King appealed a divorce judgment that awarded her rehabilitative alimony of $25/week for one year. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the rehabilitative alimony award and substituted permanent alimony at the same amount, finding that the wife's custody of two young children and lack of skills, combined with the husband's ability to pay, entitled her to support at the standard established during the marriage.
The award of rehabilitative alimony was inappropriate and reversed. Permanent alimony was awarded instead at the amount presently provided, and the requirement that the wife pay mortgage payments on the marital domicile was vacated with directions that the husband pay such payments.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony is inappropriate where a spouse has custody of young children and lacks particular skills or training, and the other spouse has the ability to pay.
[2] A spouse is obligated to support the other at a standard reasonably commensurate with that established during the marriage when need and ability to pay are demonstrated.
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“it is still the law that where the wife demonstrates the need and the husband the ability to pay, he is obligated to support her at a standard reasonably commensurate with that established by him during their marriage”
Establishes the legal standard for alimony obligations based on need, ability to pay, and marital standard of living.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePamela King and Jeffrey V. King divorced. The wife was awarded custody of two minor children, ages three and six years. The wife was relatively young,…
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 Need And Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. .
Upon a review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the brief and oral argument of appellant’s counsel, appellee having failed to file a brief and present oral argument, it is our opinion that the circumstances of the parties as disclosed in the record did not furnish a proper basis for the award of rehabilitative alimony. While the record does reflect the wife is relatively young and the marriage was of short duration, the record also reflects the award of custody to the wife of two minor children, ages' three and six years, and the wife’s lack of any particular skills or training. As pointed out in Lash v. Lash, Fla.App.1975, 307 So. 2d 241, it is still the law that where the wife demonstrates the need and the husband the ability to pay, he is obligated to support her at a standard reasonably commensurate with that established by him during their marriage. Cf. Herbert v. Herbert, Fla.App.1974, 304 So. 2d 465. Taking into consideration all of these factors including the express desire of the wife to remain at home with the children during their formative years and the need of such children of the care and attention of a mother, and award of rehabilitative alimony of $25.00 a week for one year was inappropriate. Schwartz v. Schwartz, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 117.
Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment providing for “rehabilitative” alimony for one year is reversed and in lieu thereof permanent alimony is awarded in the amount presently provided for.1 In addition that portion of the final judgment requiring mortgage payments by the wife on the marital domicile is vacated and set aside with directions that the marital domicile mortgage payments be paid by the husband. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed and the case remanded to the trial court for further action consistent herewith.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.
WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur. CROSS, J., dissents without opinion.
. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the husband from relieving himself of his obligation should a change in circumstances occur in the wife’s ability to support herself.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ter, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1978); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1977); Yohem v. Yohem, 324 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); King v. King, 316 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Reback v. Reback, 296 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1975); see, Kvittem v. Kvittem, 365 So. 2…
-
Smith v. Smith, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); West v. West, 345 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1978); Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); King v. King, 316 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Yohem v. Yohem, 324 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); cf. Kvittem v. Kvittem, 365 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). For these reasons, that portion of the final judgment granting reha…
-
Bowen v. Bowen, 347 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…with the burden of the mortgage payments and all the taxes and maintenance. See Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), and King v. King, 316 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In the final judgment dissolving the marriage, the trial judge gave custody of the two minor sons, ages 13 and 14, to the wife with the husband to pay child support of $300 per month per child. For a twenty-four month period, t…
Authorities Cited
- Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 297 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Herbert v. Herbert, 304 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)