THOMAS E. RICHTER, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROLYN A. RICHTER, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Alimony Termination Upon Remarriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Husband appeals from a final judgment in a Dissolution of Marriage case. Several questions are presented but only two have merit.
We hold that the trial court erred in ordering an automatic five percent per annum cost-of-living increase in child support. We also hold that the trial court improperly ordered that the rehabilitative alimony awarded to wife continue regardless of her remarriage. See Blackmon v. Blackmon, 307 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The objectionable provisions are stricken and the remainder of the final judgment is affirmed.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.
ALDERMAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
DAUKSCH, Judge
(concurring specially).
I understand rehabilitative alimony to be meant to assist the recipient in making a life for herself when the support from her former husband is no longer available or necessary. It is the impetus to shake prior reliances and live free. Without the statutory availability of rehabilitative alimony the court might have awarded lump sum alimony payable in installments or permanent periodic alimony to accomplish the same purpose. But these types of awards are too speculative and have the onerous ring of unnecessary support, in some cases. Rehabilitative alimony is a bit speculative but is usually awarded for a purpose, for example, to obtain an education, a certificate or some retraining in a former occupation. The amount needed is more easily determined but it is not an absolute, in most instances.
Therefore the court should not absolutely have said rehabilitative alimony shall continue regardless of remarriage. Very possibly the remarriage might accomplish the rehabilitation in that the former wife has established herself in the occupation of housewife and receives her income and support from that source. On the other hand, a remarriage may not demonstrate the absolute rehabilitation of the wife. The days when women married for support have passed and the roles of the partners to a marriage are not stereotyped but vary from family to family.
Thus for this court to determine that rehabilitation occurs or doesn’t occur upon remarriage is not grounded on reason. The provision that rehabilitative alimony would continue regardless of remarriage should be amended to read may continue regardless of remarriage in order to give to the parties an opportunity to “show cause” if remarriage occurs. I agree with the result in the majority opinion but resist the implication therein that rehabilitative alimony must always cease upon remarriage. But see dictum in Cann v. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Frye v. Frye, 385 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…cally terminable, without consideration of surrounding facts and circumstances, upon the recipient spouse’s remarriage. However, those of our sister courts which have considered the issue have held that termination is automatic. Richter v. Richter, 344 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Blackmon v. Blackmon, 307 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In the latter case, the trial court had awarded to the wife as rehabilitative alimony the lump sum of $30,000 to be paid in equal monthly installments. When the wife remar…
-
Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…tomatic changes in alimony and support payments upon the occurrence of future events have not usually found favor in Florida. Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Reid v. Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Richter v. Richter, 344 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). There is no evidentiary basis for the determination of future events, and there is an adequate procedure for modification when changes in the circumstances of the part…
-
Reid v. Demetria Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…e paying the same amount when child support would regularly terminate on the child’s 18th birthday. The court’s order merely redesig-nates the amount as alimony rather than child support. We find this to be error and reverse. See Richter v. Richter, 344 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The trial court also awarded the wife the husband’s interest in the jointly owned homeplace as lump sum alimony. Before the wife can be awarded the husband’s interest as lump sum alimony, there must be a positive showing of nec…
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
- Tedford J. Cann v. Margery M. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Blackmon v. Blackmon, 307 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)