Purrinos v. Purrinos

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Purrinos v. Purrinos

34 So. 3d 244, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6544, 2010 WL 1875607

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 2010

Docket3D09-1085

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 So. 3d 244 (Purrinos v. Purrinos) 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

Purrinos v. Purrinos, 34 So. 3d 244, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6544, 2010 WL 1875607 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The judgment below dissolved a near-sixteen year marriage, which produced three now-school-age children. The Purri-noses’ only substantial asset was the family home, which was severely under water, and was granted by agreement to the wife. Both parties worked during the marriage, with the husband typically earning substantially more than the wife. At the time of the final hearing however, he was involuntarily, temporarily unemployed but had the expectation of securing a position shortly thereafter.

Under these circumstances, we agree with the appellant wife’s sole contention on appeal: that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to award her alimony in any form. In recognition of the desirability of providing for the real likelihood that such an award, although not now appropriate because of the husband’s inability to pay, may become so in the future, we remand the case with directions to award her permanent periodic alimony in a nominal amount. See Gulbrandsen v. Gulbrandsen, 22 So.3d 640, 645 n. 8. (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (cases collected); Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So.2d 232, 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). See also Greene v. Greene, 256 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (ordering reservation of jurisdiction for subsequent award of alimony).

The judgment below is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The judgment below dissolved a near-sixteen year marriage, which produced three now-school-age children. The Purri-noses’ only substantial asset was the family home, which was severely under water, and was granted by agreement to the wife. Both parties worked during the marriage, with the husband typically earning substantially more than the wife. At the time of the final hearing however, he was involuntarily, temporarily unemployed but had the expectation of securing a position shortly thereafter.

Under these circumstances, we agree with the appellant wife’s sole contention on appeal: that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to award her alimony in any form. In recognition of the desirability of providing for the real likelihood that such an award, although not now appropriate because of the husband’s inability to pay, may become so in the future, we remand the case with directions to award her permanent periodic alimony in a nominal amount. See Gulbrandsen v. Gulbrandsen, 22 So.3d 640, 645 n. 8. (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (cases collected); Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So.2d 232, 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). See also Greene v. Greene, 256 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (ordering reservation of jurisdiction for subsequent award of alimony).

The judgment below is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 So. 3d 244, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6544, 2010 WL 1875607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purrinos-v-purrinos-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack