RUTH A. LANGSTAFF, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN M. LANGSTAFF, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed in part a final judgment in a divorce case, holding that the trial court erred in providing for a reduction in alimony from $1,150 to $700 per month upon completion of partition proceedings involving the marital home. The court found that the wife's need for support would continue after the house sale and that the reduction was not justified.
The reduction of alimony was error and reversed. The court held that if the wife needs $1,150 in permanent periodic alimony now, she will still need it after the house is sold, as her share of proceeds will only be approximately $25,000 and she must secure another residence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding dissolution, retention of jurisdiction for attorney's fees, or the decision against lump sum alimony.
[1] A reduction in permanent periodic alimony is improper when the recipient spouse's need for the original amount remains unchanged by the event triggering the reduction, ab…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting dissolution of marriage under the presented facts.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“if the wife needs $1,150 in permanent periodic alimony now, she will still need it after the house is sold, unless some eventuality takes place which we do not foresee”
Establishes the court's principal reasoning for reversing the alimony reduction and applying the rule that ongoing need for support does not change simply because of receipt of a one-time asset.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis 29-year marriage produced four children. The wife, age 55, was an airline stewardess at marriage but had not worked outside the home since, at he…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
This appeal is from a final judgment awarding $1,150 per month in alimony, same to be reduced to $700 upon completion of partition proceedings involving the marital home. We reverse in part.
This marriage was of 29 years duration and produced four children. At the time of the marriage the now 55 year old spouse was an airline stewardess, but since marriage, at her husband’s request, the wife has not worked outside the home. She suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, but has a real estate license from which she has so far realized a total of only $1,500.
The husband 58, is a urologist with some health defects which so far have not prevented him from full-time practice. The parties have lived well, perhaps too much so, in that no large estate has been built up, but the husband has a steady income which, while disputed, is at least $55,000 per an-num in salary from his P.A. The final judgment provided for periodic alimony of $1,150 per month until the house is sold and thereafter $700 permanent, periodic. We are of the view that the reduction was error. As we said in McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and McCloskey v. McCloskey, 359 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), if the wife needs $1,150 in permanent periodic alimony now, she will still need it after the house is sold, unless some eventuality takes place which we do not foresee. It is quite true that the wife will receive half of the net proceeds of the house sale, but the record indicates that her half share will be no more than $25,000 and she has to secure another place to live. All this being so, we see no reason why the $1,150 per month alimony awarded should be reduced, when we also consider that Dr. Langstaff’s monthly gross salary (not counting what his P.A. pays for) is nearly $4,600 or four times the amount of alimony awarded. Moreover, the alimony will be deductible by him and taxable to his wife.
As to the other points on appeal, we cannot say, under the facts presented, that the trial judge abused his discretion either in granting dissolution or in retaining jurisdiction to assess attorneys’ fees and tax costs. Likewise, although the award is not generous, we cannot hold that an award of $1,150 per month is so grossly inadequate that it is reversible error. Moreover, Dr. Langstaff’s net worth is very modest and we cannot fault the Trial Judge for not awarding lump sum alimony.
REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.
CROSS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- McCLOSKEY v. McCLOSKEY, 359 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)