Collins v. Collins
This text of 655 So. 2d 1163 (Collins v. Collins) 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.
Opinion
Lois I. Collins (wife) appeals from a final judgment dissolving her thirty-one-year marriage with Julian Stephen Collins, Sr. (husband). The wife raises six issues on appeal. We reverse and remand on the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying permanent periodic alimony to the wife, and affirm, without discussion, all remaining issues raised on appeal.
The wife argues she is entitled to permanent periodic alimony, given the length of the marriage, the fact that the husband’s gross monthly income is about three times that of the wife, the husband’s superior earning capacity, and the wife’s limited earning capacity, given her age and work experience. She also argues the trial court erred by failing to make findings of fact required by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (1993) to support its decision to deny the wife alimony. Section 61.08(1) provides, in relevant part: “In all dissolution actions, the court shall include findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award or denial of alimony.”1 Review of the final judgment reflects an absence of written findings to support the trial court’s decision regarding alimony. Without these findings, meaningful appellate review of the alimony decision is not possible. Jacques v. Jacques, 609 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s ruling denying the wife alimony. On remand, we direct the trial court to reconsider its decision to deny alimony in light of Fontana v. Fontana, 617 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Whether the trial court ultimately decides to grant or deny alimony, it must enter written findings to support its decision.
The judgment is otherwise affirmed in all respects.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, and REVERSE and REMAND in part.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
655 So. 2d 1163, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4990, 1995 WL 264095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-collins-fladistctapp-1995.