Busch v. Busch

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Busch v. Busch

651 So. 2d 805, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2305, 1995 WL 94394

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1995

DocketNo. 94-336

StatusPublished

This text of 651 So. 2d 805 (Busch v. Busch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Busch v. Busch, 651 So. 2d 805, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2305, 1995 WL 94394 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

BENTON, Judge.

William Terrance Busch appeals a final judgment awarding alimony on grounds it is unsupported by the evidence, unjustified by the trial court’s findings, improperly awards “additional alimony notwithstanding her [re-jmarriage” on the basis of the mere possibility of his receiving disability retirement benefits in the future, and reserves jurisdiction to award additional alimony in the event he receives no retirement benefits at all, again even in the event Julia Ann Busch has remarried.

The evidence and the trial court’s findings, see section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1993) (“the court shall include findings of fact ... supporting an award or denial of alimony”) are more than adequate to justify awards of alimony, both rehabilitative and permanent periodic. We nevertheless remand, because the final judgment does not distinguish between these two types of award. Rehabilitative alimony may survive the awardee’s remarriage, Owens v. Owens, 559 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 1st DCA1990), while permanent periodic alimony cannot. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980). If the trial court orders periodic alimony, it retains jurisdiction to revisit the question of alimony as long as Mrs. Busch’s entitlement to receive alimony lasts, but the trial court has no authority to order permanent periodic alimony after her remarriage.

Reversed and remanded.

MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BENTON, Judge.

William Terrance Busch appeals a final judgment awarding alimony on grounds it is unsupported by the evidence, unjustified by the trial court’s findings, improperly awards “additional alimony notwithstanding her [re-jmarriage” on the basis of the mere possibility of his receiving disability retirement benefits in the future, and reserves jurisdiction to award additional alimony in the event he receives no retirement benefits at all, again even in the event Julia Ann Busch has remarried.

The evidence and the trial court’s findings, see section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1993) (“the court shall include findings of fact ... supporting an award or denial of alimony”) are more than adequate to justify awards of alimony, both rehabilitative and permanent periodic. We nevertheless remand, because the final judgment does not distinguish between these two types of award. Rehabilitative alimony may survive the awardee’s remarriage, Owens v. Owens, 559 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 1st DCA1990), while permanent periodic alimony cannot. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980). If the trial court orders periodic alimony, it retains jurisdiction to revisit the question of alimony as long as Mrs. Busch’s entitlement to receive alimony lasts, but the trial court has no authority to order permanent periodic alimony after her remarriage.

Reversed and remanded.

MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 So. 2d 805, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2305, 1995 WL 94394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busch-v-busch-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack