Gibson v. Gibson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gibson v. Gibson

520 So. 2d 662, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 529, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 788, 1988 WL 12531

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1064

StatusPublished

This text of 520 So. 2d 662 (Gibson v. Gibson) 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

Gibson v. Gibson, 520 So. 2d 662, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 529, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 788, 1988 WL 12531 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record, the governing criteria found in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), and the advice of counsel, we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in failing to award to the wife attorney fees and permanent periodic alimony, as opposed to rehabilitative alimony. We are persuaded in this direction primarily by the duration of the marriage, the wife’s age and the state of her health, the wife’s education and lack of working skills, and the disparate earning capacities between the parties. See Goss v. Goss, 400 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

We reverse and remand with instructions to award the wife attorney fees and permanent periodic alimony. The trial court may, in its discretion, determine the need for the presentation of additional evidence and arguments by the parties before entering judgment upon remand.

Reversed and Remanded.

DOWNEY, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record, the governing criteria found in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), and the advice of counsel, we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in failing to award to the wife attorney fees and permanent periodic alimony, as opposed to rehabilitative alimony. We are persuaded in this direction primarily by the duration of the marriage, the wife’s age and the state of her health, the wife’s education and lack of working skills, and the disparate earning capacities between the parties. See Goss v. Goss, 400 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

We reverse and remand with instructions to award the wife attorney fees and permanent periodic alimony. The trial court may, in its discretion, determine the need for the presentation of additional evidence and arguments by the parties before entering judgment upon remand.

Reversed and Remanded.

DOWNEY, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 So. 2d 662, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 529, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 788, 1988 WL 12531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-gibson-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack