Angelides v. Angelides

• Decision Date: 09 April 1985
• Docket Number: Nos. 83-2379,84-1175,84-1908 and 84-2070,s. 83-2379
• Citation: Angelides v. Angelides, 466 So.2d 1198, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 914 (Fla. App. 1985)
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 914 Alexander C. ANGELIDES, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Denise ANGELIDES, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1198

466 So.2d 1198

10 Fla. L. Weekly 914

Alexander C. ANGELIDES, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Denise ANGELIDES, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 83-2379, 84-1175, 84-1908 and 84-2070.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

April 9, 1985.

Joe N. Unger, Miami, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik and Norman A. Sand and Paul Louis, Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Before HENDRY, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

BASKIN, Judge.

These consolidated appeals arise from a final judgment of dissolution dissolving the parties' twenty-one-year marriage. The husband seeks to overturn the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife and two final judgments awarding the wife attorney's fees and costs. The wife appeals two post-judgment orders. We affirm.

In Walter v. Walter, 464 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court reiterated the scope of appellate review of a trial court's disposition of property and alimony or support awards:

In reviewing the trial court's disposition of property and award of alimony and support, the appellate court's responsibility is to determine from the admitted facts, or the facts taken most favorably to the prevailing party, (1) whether the rules of law were applied correctly and (2) whether the trial court's discretionary authority was reasonably exercised under the test set forth in Canakaris.

The husband contends that the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony resulted from the incorrect application of a rule of law. According to the husband, the fact that the trial court's disposition of the assets enables the wife to maintain herself in the style to which she has become accustomed precludes a showing of financial need. Current law, however, does not restrict an award of permanent periodic alimony to circumstances of demonstrated need.

While permanent periodic alimony is most commonly used to provide support, in limited circumstances its use may be appropriate to balance such inequities as might result from the allocation of income-generating properties acquired during the marriage.

Walter, at 539 [quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201-02 (Fla.1980) ]. Thus, the trial court, in the proper exercise of its discretion, may balance the parties' assets and income. We therefore conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court acted reasonably, exercised its discretion properly, and applied correct principles of law in awarding...