JOSEPH SOMMESE, APPELLANT,
v.
MAXINE SOMMESE, 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.
In this marriage dissolution case, a husband appeals a trial court's award of permanent alimony of $600 per month to his wife of 25 years. The appellate court affirmed the award, holding that a long-term homemaker with no training for gainful employment and no demonstrated desire to work may be entitled to permanent alimony when her former spouse has substantial income.
The trial court's award of permanent alimony was proper. A wife of 25 years who devoted herself to homemaking and raising children may be entitled to permanent alimony when she has present and prospective needs, the husband is able to meet those needs, and the wife is untrained and unwilling to work.
[1] A court may award permanent alimony when a spouse demonstrates present and prospective needs for support, the other spouse has the ability to meet those needs, and the re…
[2] A long-term marriage where one spouse primarily focused on homemaking may justify permanent alimony without requiring that spouse to retrain for employment if the other s…
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“the wife is 52 years of age, in good health, but untrained for any gainful occupation”
The trial court's findings that supported the alimony award
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for 25 years. The wife, age 52, is in good health but has no job training and has been employed only in the distant past. The…
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
SMITH, Judge.
The appellant husband in this marriage dissolution proceeding complains of the circuit court’s award of permanent alimony of the wife in the amount of $600 per month.
The trial judge predicated the alimony award on findings that the wife has present and prospective needs for such support, that the husband is able to meet those needs and that “the wife is 52 years of age, in good health, but untrained for any gainful occupation.” These findings are supported by substantial evidence.
The wife, who in the distant past has been employed, considers herself now essentially unemployable. She stated, in so many words, that she did not wish to work, had not looked for work and felt no obligation to work. Implicit in the chancellor’s award of permanent alimony is a decision, indeed perhaps a policy, that a wife of twenty-five years who devoted herself principally to making a home for a family including five children has no obligation on dissolution of the marriage to train herself for employment when her husband is able to support her from his annual gross income exceeding $50,000, to the extent ordered.
We recognize the merit in appellant’s argument that the chancellor might well have awarded rehabilitative alimony and retained jurisdiction to award permanent alimony, so to determine whether Ms. Sommese’s economic dependence can and should be mitigated by training. In a proper case such a procedure would doubtless serve the long term interests of both spouses. Roberts v. Roberts, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla.App. 1st, 1973); Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla.App. 2d, 1975). But here we must and do affirm the chancellor’s order; recognizing that the manner in which he exercises discretion in resolving these delicate matters must be accorded the utmost respect on appeal. Long v. Long, 304 So. 2d 483 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974).
Ms. Sommese’s petition for the allowance of a fee for services of her attorney in this Court is granted, the amount to be determined by the trial judge.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., concurs.
MILLS, J., dissents.
MILLS, Judge
(dissenting) :
I dissent. I would reverse the award of permanent alimony and remand for the trial court to set rehabilitative alimony. I would deny appellee’s petition for attorney’s fee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…1976); Norton v. Norton, 328 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Gall v. Gall, 336 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Fugassi v. Fugassi, 332 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); In re Marriage of Stevens, 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.…
-
Avie Lee Thornton v. Lacy Thornton, Jr., 433 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…cases. The authority of the appellate court to award attorney’s fees is based on the interpretation of section 61.16 as authorizing fee awards both at trial and on appeal. Bryan v. [*684] Bryan, 342 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Sommese v. Sommese, 324 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Ruhnau v. Ruhnau, 299 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Lovett v. Lovett, 194 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The difficulty is not in ascertaining the authority for such fees, but in formulating consistent rules to govern the exerc…
-
Messer v. Addison L. Messer, 342 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…0 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) . 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). . See, e. g., Reback v. Reback, 296 So. 2d 541 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Patterson v. Patterson, 315 So. 2d 104 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Lash v. Lash, supra, n. 2. . Cf. Sommese v. Sommese, 324 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). . See Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla.4th DCA 1971).…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Martin v. State, 304 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Howard Banks v. Simpson, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Roberts v. Nona Lee Roberts, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)