Register v. Register

690 So. 2d 750, 1997 WL 155125
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 4, 1997
Docket96-2233
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 690 So. 2d 750 (Register v. Register) 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
Register v. Register, 690 So. 2d 750, 1997 WL 155125 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

690 So.2d 750 (1997)

Roselyne H. REGISTER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
Robert E. REGISTER, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 96-2233.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 4, 1997.

William R. Northcutt of William R. Northcutt, P.A., Indian Harbour Beach, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

*751 Robert M. Marasco of Marasco & Wilkes, Rockledge, for Appellee/ Cross-Appellant.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a marital dissolution case. We affirm the judgment except as set out below.

Appellant did not seek rehabilitative alimony, so she offered no evidence in that regard. It was error to award it. See Robinson v. Robinson, 655 So.2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). It is well established that a party seeking rehabilitative alimony must prove the necessity for such an award and present a plan for rehabilitation. See Horgan v. Horgan, 622 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Adams v. Adams, 604 So.2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. den., 614 So.2d 502 (Fla. 1993); Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So.2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Appellant did seek her share of the pension of appellee. The court erred in failing to recognize her rights in this marital property. See Cox v. Cox, 659 So.2d 1051 (Fla.1995); Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986); Cole v. Roberts, 661 So.2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Because we must reverse these awards, it will be necessary on remand for the trial judge to reexamine the award of attorney's fees to appellant and the lack of award of permanent alimony to appellant. If the income and assets of the parties is nearly equal, then neither is entitled to receive attorney's fees from the other. The determination of whether appellant is entitled to permanent alimony should be made anew when all of the financial equities are considered on remand.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.

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

Related

Bryan v. Bryan
765 So. 2d 829 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Beasley v. Beasley
717 So. 2d 208 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Weller v. Weller
709 So. 2d 646 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
690 So. 2d 750, 1997 WL 155125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/register-v-register-fladistctapp-1997.