Rivers v. Rivers

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rivers v. Rivers

785 So. 2d 752, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7527, 2001 WL 584253

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2001

DocketNo. 5D00-1912

StatusPublished

This text of 785 So. 2d 752 (Rivers v. Rivers) 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

Rivers v. Rivers, 785 So. 2d 752, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7527, 2001 WL 584253 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, W., J.

Maria Rivers appeals from a final judgment dissolving her three and one-half year marriage to Joseph Rivers. We affirm the denial of rehabilitative alimony, given the evidence that this short-term marriage did not affect Maria’s employa-bility and her failure to provide a plan for rehabilitation. See Sutton v. Hart, 746 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So.2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Beasley v. Beasley, 717 So.2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We also affirm the determination that Maria was not entitled to any interest in the parties’ homes or Joseph’s business. The evidence supports the trial court’s determination that these assets were either non-marital, or that Joseph had a special equity in them, and that Maria failed to prove any enhancement value. See § 61.075(5)(b)(l), Fla. Stat.; Hill v. Hill, 675 So.2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). See also Young v. Young, 600 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 13 (Fla.1992).

However, we remand for a determination on Maria’s request for attorney’s fees. Maria asked for fees in her dissolution petition and at trial, but the final judgment contains no ruling in this regard. Given the disparity in the parties’ income and assets,¹ Maria may well be entitled to attorney’s fees. See Karpovich v. Karpovich, 739 So.2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Johnson v. Johnson, 560 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Nichols v. Nichols, 418 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for Ruling on Attorney’s Fees.

PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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

SHARP, W., J.

Maria Rivers appeals from a final judgment dissolving her three and one-half year marriage to Joseph Rivers. We affirm the denial of rehabilitative alimony, given the evidence that this short-term marriage did not affect Maria’s employa-bility and her failure to provide a plan for rehabilitation. See Sutton v. Hart, 746 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So.2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Beasley v. Beasley, 717 So.2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We also affirm the determination that Maria was not entitled to any interest in the parties’ homes or Joseph’s business. The evidence supports the trial court’s determination that these assets were either non-marital, or that Joseph had a special equity in them, and that Maria failed to prove any enhancement value. See § 61.075(5)(b)(l), Fla. Stat.; Hill v. Hill, 675 So.2d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). See also Young v. Young, 600 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 13 (Fla.1992).

However, we remand for a determination on Maria’s request for attorney’s fees. Maria asked for fees in her dissolution petition and at trial, but the final judgment contains no ruling in this regard. Given the disparity in the parties’ income and assets,¹ Maria may well be entitled to attorney’s fees. See Karpovich v. Karpovich, 739 So.2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Johnson v. Johnson, 560 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Nichols v. Nichols, 418 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for Ruling on Attorney’s Fees.

PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

785 So. 2d 752, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7527, 2001 WL 584253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivers-v-rivers-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack