MARY GEMMA THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD G. THOMAS, 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 monthly alimony should be permanent rather than rehabilitative and that the sale of the marital home should proceed according to partition requirements.
[1] Permanent alimony is appropriate when a marriage is of long duration, the custodial parent has limited earning potential, and the payor spouse has the ability to pay.
[2] A trial court may order the sale of a marital home and division of proceeds when pleadings and evidence support such an order.
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 intelligenceThe parties divorced after a twenty-year marriage with four children. The husband earns $45,000-$50,000 annually, while the wife earns $3,627.68 annua…
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 Earning Potential cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Chief Judge.
We affirm the judgment of dissolution except as set forth below.
(1) The monthly alimony of $430, rather than rehabilitative for a period of four years, should be permanent. The parties were married twenty years, and the youngest of their four children is now twelve. Neither of the parties has appreciable assets save their respective tenancy-by-the-entireties interests in the marital home. The husband earns $45,000-$50,000 yearly as an insurance agent. Two years before the divorce, the wife obtained a teaching certificate and now earns $3,627.68 annually as a part-time teacher. She could earn about $9,000 as a full-time teacher but she has been unable to secure a full-time job because of the large number of elementary education applicants eligible for openings ahead of her. Even if she could get a full-time position her standard of living would still be substantially less than that which the parties enjoyed during the marriage. So long as the husband can afford it, and there is no appreciable increase in the wife’s earning potential, the husband should be required to supplement the wife’s earnings. In re Marriage of Jones, 357 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
The fact that the husband must also pay substantial support for the three minor children is irrelevant to our conclusion. He is not contesting the amount of the support and alimony awards, and the additional alimony burden hereby imposed upon him will not take effect until his child support obligation has been reduced and is nearing its termination.
(2) The pleadings and the evidence were sufficient to warrant an order for the sale of the marital home and a division of the proceedá. However, the judgment should be amended so that the sale of the property shall proceed according to the partition requirements of Chapter 64, Florida Statutes (1977). Carlsen v. Carlsen, 346 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GRIMES, C. J., and RYDER and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foss v. Foss, 392 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), we hold that Mrs. Foss was entitled to permanent alimony. And see Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Kvittem v. Kvittem, 365 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Thomas v. Thomas, 364 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bowen v. Bowen, 347 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We also agree with Mrs. Foss that the trial court erred in ordering that she make her home available to her husband in order that he may visit there with the children. The final…
-
Capps v. Capps, 392 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…herself, permanent, not rehabilitative, alimony, in an amount within the ability of the husband to pay, is required. Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Kvittem v. Kvittem, 365 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Thomas v. Thomas, 364 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See also Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Messer v. Messer, 342 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Since the trial court failed to apply this rule of law, we are…
Authorities Cited
- Lash v. Lash, 307 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Kirkland v. Johnson, 346 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- In re the Marriage OF Barbara E. Jones, 357 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)