JEANETTE ENGLAND COLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT STANTON COLLINS, 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 court held that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding only a Cadillac as alimony, and modified the award to include rehabilitative alimony.
[1] Alimony awards are determined by the needs of the requesting spouse, the financial ability of the other spouse, and the standard of living established during the marriage…
[2] A lump sum alimony award consisting solely of a vehicle may constitute an abuse of discretion when it fails to adequately address the requesting spouse's needs and the pa…
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 intelligenceFollowing a dissolution of marriage, the wife was awarded a Cadillac, child support, and ordered to vacate the marital residence. The wife appealed th…
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 No-Fault Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner-appellant seeks review of the alimony and child support awards entered pursuant to a dissolution of marriage judgment.
After three stormy years of marriage, Jeanette Collins petitioned for dissolution of marriage. A final judgment severing the marital ties to her husband Robert Collins was entered, and Jeanette was awarded as lump sum alimony “that certain 1971 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, free and clear of any and all encumbrances,” $60 per week as support for the minor child born of the marriage, and was directed to vacate the marital residence within 14 days of the date of the judgment.
Appellant first contends the chancellor abused his discretion in awarding only the Cadillac as alimony. We find this point well taken.
Even though Florida has adopted the no-fault divorce concept, the guidelines in determining the amount of alimony are the needs of the wife, the financial ability of the husband, and the standard of living established by the parties during the marriage. Royal v. Royal, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 277 and cases cited therein. Further, the very heart of an alimony award is and always has been the need of the demanding spouse for support and the ability of the other spouse to respond. Thigpen v. Thigpen, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 583.
There is no question as to the ability of Robert Collins, a successful businessman, to make alimony payments, the lavish standard of living established by the parties during their marriage, and the needs and expressed desire of the appellant to rehabilitate herself by returning to college. Accordingly, we have determined that Jeanette Collins should be awarded $500 per month as rehabilitative alimony for a period of two years commencing with the issuance of the mandate of this court.
As to appellant s remaining points on appeal, we conclude that no abuse of discretion and no reversible error has been made to appear. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for entry of an amended judgment as prescribed herein-above.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lange v. Lange, 357 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…aims based on subjective determinations which the courts of this state are ill-prepared to handle in dissolution proceedings. The very heart of an alimony award is and always has been the need of the demanding spouse for support. Collins v. Collins, 323 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Thigpen v. Thigpen, 277 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). The purpose of alimony is to provide nourishment, sustenance and the necessities of life to the former spouse. Cann v. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Emotional at…
-
Gordon v. Jeri Lee Gordon, 335 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…illustrated by rehabilitative alimony have not completely abrogated the time-honored concept of periodic alimony. Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla.App. 1st 1974); Herbert v. Herbert, 304 So. 2d 465 (Fla.App.4th 1974); see also Collins v. Collins, 323 So. 2d 583 (Fla.App.3d 1975). But, regardless of nomenclature or semantics, any award must be based upon traditional considerations of. need and ability. Collins v. Collins, supra. In determining the nature and amount of the award due consideration must be gi…
-
Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…overted facts that the wife has the capacity and desire to be self-supporting, but that she is also presently working part-time as well as preparing herself for a new career. See: Cann v. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Collins v. Collins, 323 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Zaugg v. Zaugg, 357 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Manning v. Manning, 353 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 353 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In Cann v. Cann, supra, the First District Court of Appeal he…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Manly W. Thigpen v. Thigpen, 277 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Lovie Royal v. Royal, 263 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)