Brooks v. Brooks, 95-4287
| Decision Date | 23 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-4287,95-4287 |
| Citation | 678 So.2d 1368 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1925 Linda Gail BROOKS, Appellant, v. Roy BROOKS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mark D. Davis, DeFuniak Springs, for Appellant.
Roy A. Lake, Bonifay, for Appellee.
The sole issue raised in this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of the parties' twenty-year marriage concerns the trial court's decision to award to the wife rehabilitative, rather than permanent periodic alimony. We reverse and remand for entry of an award of permanent periodic alimony.
Throughout the parties' marriage, the wife's contribution was that of homemaker and mother. The wife's lack of outside employment seems to have been either a matter of mutual consent, or the husband's preference. 1 The record indicates that during the wife's brief periods of employment as a waitress and as a cosmetologist, her earnings were at the minimum wage level. In 1974, the wife completed a cosmetology course. In 1975, after completing the one-year work requirement, the wife became licensed as a master cosmetologist. It appears this year of work experience, somewhat akin to an apprenticeship, was the wife's most recent, and perhaps most continuous, period of paid employment during the course of the parties' marriage.
The wife's unrefuted testimony established that she is unable to support herself at a level commensurate with the marital standard of living. Indeed, the husband corroborated the wife's testimony, by stating that the wife will be unable to earn an income sufficient to maintain the lifestyle the parties enjoyed during the marriage. The wife requested permanent periodic alimony in the amount of $800.00 per month. In the final judgment, the trial court found the wife "is in good health and employable," had worked during the marriage as a waitress, bookkeeper, and cosmetologist, and possessed a master cosmetologist's license. The trial court then awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $350.00 per month for a period of thirty-six months. 2
The wife filed a motion for rehearing of the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony. As grounds therefor, the wife alleged the evidence presented before the trial court established her need for permanent periodic alimony, and the trial court failed to include a rehabilitation plan and goal, as required by Florida law. The trial court summarily denied the wife's motion for rehearing.
The applicable provisions of section 61.08, Florida Statutes (1993), state:
(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, the court may grant alimony to either party, which alimony may be rehabilitative or permanent in nature. In any award of alimony, the court may order periodic payments or payments in lump sum or both. The court may consider the adultery of either spouse and the circumstances thereof in determining the amount of alimony, if any, to be awarded. In all dissolution actions, the court shall include findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award or denial of alimony.
(2) In determining a proper award of alimony or maintenance, the court shall consider all relevant economic factors, including but not limited to:
(a) The standard of living established during the marriage.
(b) The duration of the marriage.
(c) The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party.
(d) The financial resources of each party, the nonmarital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each.
(e) When applicable, the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment.
(f) The contribution of each party to the marriage, including, but not limited to, services rendered in homemaking, child care, education, and career building of the other party.
(g) All sources of income available to either party.
The court may consider any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.
The statutory requirement of specific "findings of fact ... supporting an award or denial of alimony," is to facilitate meaningful appellate review. Wetzel v. Wetzel, 671 So.2d 234, 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In determining whether to award permanent periodic alimony, the trial court should consider the needs and necessities of the requesting spouse in accordance with the marital standard of living. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Crowley v. Crowley, 672 So.2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Zeigler v. Zeigler, 635 So.2d 50, 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). It is improper to deny permanent alimony "unless there is some evidence that the appellant can attain a level of self support reasonably commensurate with the standard of living established during the marriage." Zeigler, 635 So.2d at 54.
The disparate earning power of the parties is a significant factor in determining whether permanent or temporary support is appropriate. Zeigler, 635 So.2d at 54. Further, "[i]n situations where the superior earning power of one spouse is achieved during a period when the other spouse is out of the job market as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. Greene
...767 So.2d 458 (Fla.2000); Cardillo v. Cardillo, 707 So.2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 725 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1998); Brooks v. Brooks, 678 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Young v. Young, 677 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Zeigler v. Zeigler, 635 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Nelson v. Nels......
-
Geoghegan v. Geoghegan
...2006); Jain v. Jain, 915 So.2d 711, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Milo v. Milo, 718 So.2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Brooks v. Brooks, 678 So.2d 1368, 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The failure to provide these required findings may, therefore, constitute reversible error. Fulmer v. Fulmer, 961 So.......
-
Helling v. Bartok
...the marriage" in "determining a proper award"). Although such an omission can constitute reversible error, see Brooks v. Brooks, 678 So.2d 1368, 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Solomon v. Solomon, 861 So.2d 1218, 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), a party will not be heard to complain of an absence of fact......
-
McMullan v. McMullan, 98-231
...review. See Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So.2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Romano v. Romano, 690 So.2d 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Brooks v. Brooks, 678 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Goosby v. Goosby, 614 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We also note that an order which is not clear and definite is insu......
-
Appellate Court trends in rehabilitative alimony.
...due to the trial court's failure to make specific findings concerning a rehabilitative plan to justify the order. In Brooks v. Brooks, 678 So. 2d 1368, 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), the First District reversed the trial court's order of rehabilitative alimony and awarded permanent alimony where......