Stewart v. Stewart

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stewart v. Stewart

696 So. 2d 1237, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6552, 1997 WL 317033

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 1997

DocketNo. 95-2904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 So. 2d 1237 (Stewart v. Stewart) 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

Stewart v. Stewart, 696 So. 2d 1237, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6552, 1997 WL 317033 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The former husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred in awarding permanent alimony to the former wife, and we reverse that award.

The record below established that the wife, 34 years of age at the time of dissolution, was in good health, had a nursing degree and was employed as a pharmaceutical representative. She testified that she could earn $3,000.00 per month as a placement coordinator. An award of permanent alimony under those circumstances was an abuse of discretion. See Siegel v. Siegel, 564 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Bujarski v. Bujarski, 530 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Wismar v. Wismar, 522 So.2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So.2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. dismissed, 453 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1984). A determination that permanent alimony should be awarded implies that one spouse is incapable of self-support. Griffith v. Griffith, 528 So.2d 1325, 1326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). That incapacity is not demonstrated by the instant record.

It is understandable that the trial judge in this ease made no attempt to comply with the requirements of section 61.08(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, in respect to findings of fact to support his alimony award. See Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In the case relied upon by the appel-lee to support an award of permanent alimony— O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) — the parties had been married for thirty-two years, the wife had not been gainfully employed, and she was 50 years old at the time of dissolution.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred in awarding permanent alimony to the former wife, and we reverse that award.

The record below established that the wife, 34 years of age at the time of dissolution, was in good health, had a nursing degree and was employed as a pharmaceutical representative. She testified that she could earn $3,000.00 per month as a placement coordinator. An award of permanent alimony under those circumstances was an abuse of discretion. See Siegel v. Siegel, 564 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Bujarski v. Bujarski, 530 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Wismar v. Wismar, 522 So.2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So.2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. dismissed, 453 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1984). A determination that permanent alimony should be awarded implies that one spouse is incapable of self-support. Griffith v. Griffith, 528 So.2d 1325, 1326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). That incapacity is not demonstrated by the instant record.

It is understandable that the trial judge in this ease made no attempt to comply with the requirements of section 61.08(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, in respect to findings of fact to support his alimony award. See Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In the case relied upon by the appel-lee to support an award of permanent alimony— O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) — the parties had been married for thirty-two years, the wife had not been gainfully employed, and she was 50 years old at the time of dissolution.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 1237, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6552, 1997 WL 317033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-stewart-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack