Burrill v. Burrill, 96-1528
| Decision Date | 02 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1528,96-1528 |
| Citation | 701 So.2d 354 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1587 Doris Ann Adams BURRILL, Appellant, v. Donald Morrill BURRILL, III, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James L. Chase and Kristen P. Marks of James L. Chase & Associates, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
Kathleen E. Anderson of Anderson & Sellers, Chartered, Pensacola, for Appellee.
This is an appeal from a final order of dissolution of marriage. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award permanent alimony to appellant, the former wife, therefore we reverse and remand.
The parties were married for almost 16 years and have two sons. Primary residential custody was awarded to appellee, the former husband. The wife had worked sporadically during the marriage, but for the most part did not work when the children were small. When she returned to work and to school, she conformed her schedule to the children's schedules. The husband, who worked long hours, had supported her staying at home with the children. It is undisputed that wife was the children's primary caretaker during their early years, although the trial court found that the parties' roles with regard to the children had changed in the past few years, and that finding is supported in the record. At some point the wife returned to full-time work and began attending school. She subsequently attended school full-time and did not work, and she devoted a great deal of time to her school work and activities.
At the time of the final hearing, wife, age 39, had not quite completed her studies for a bachelor's degree in social work. She had originally expected to be finished by May, 1996, but at hearing, held in mid-February, 1996, said she expected to complete her work in the summer, 1996, term. After completing that degree, she hoped to obtain a job that would provide a starting salary of about $18-20,000, although at the time of the final hearing, she was not employed. Her work history included clerical-type employment at which she had earned $6-7.00 per hour. She hoped to continue studying for a master's degree, although she had not yet settled on a definite program of study, and she realized it might not be possible to study full-time due to family finances. In her petition for dissolution, wife sought permanent and rehabilitative alimony.
By the time of the final hearing, wife had received a student loan and had moved from the marital home into a $500 per month apartment, while husband remained in the marital home, valued at $120,000, with the children. As the result of a temporary hearing, husband, whose gross income varies from approximately $60,000 to $70,000 annually, was required to provide wife $100 per week on a temporary basis at some point after the petition for dissolution was filed. Although wife was not employed, husband did not provide her any additional funds. Wife charged approximately $15,000 in credit card debts over the fourteen months between the time she moved out of the marital home and the final dissolution hearing. Husband indicated that on previous occasions, he had destroyed wife's charge cards due to her alleged financial irresponsibility. The trial court noted in the final order that it appeared wife had been financially irresponsible in the past and also had dissipated her student loan so that it would not cover the period of time it was intended to cover.
At the final hearing, the trial court announced it would award rehabilitative alimony of $550 per month for 24 months to give the wife an opportunity to finish her degrees so that she could obtain gainful employment. After some discussion, the court altered its oral ruling and ruled wife would receive $900 per month, representing $780 toward buying out her interest in the marital home, and $120 rehabilitative alimony. Husband did not ask for any child support, recognizing that wife would not be in a position to pay any as she was not employed, but he did ask for some kind of "credit" since she would not be paying child support. Husband indicated his expenses exceeded his income by about $1500 per month. While he had been unsuccessful in his attempts to find a buyer for his boat, for which monthly payments were $660.00, he apparently intended to continue his efforts to do so.
In the written final judgment, the court awarded no permanent or rehabilitative alimony, finding that wife's education was a luxury the family could not afford, and that she voluntarily left her employment to pursue school full-time and was on notice there might not be an award of alimony considering that total living expenses exceeded husband's monthly income. The court specifically denied the request for rehabilitative alimony, but did not specifically address the request for permanent alimony. The court awarded wife lump sum alimony in the amount of $38,250.00, to be paid at the rate of $1,000 per month, representing her share of the equitable distribution of marital assets. The court also suggested the husband consider selling his boat, valued at $38,000. The family business, Burrill Enterprises,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yitzhari v. Yitzhari
...capacity becomes a `significant factor' in deciding whether permanent or temporary support is appropriate"); Burrill v. Burrill, 701 So.2d 354, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(confirming that disparity in earning ability supported a permanent periodic award to a wife even though she was only months......
-
Sarazin v. Sarazin
...paid by her family due to the lack of proof that she needs to repay them." The wife argues this was error, citing Burrill v. Burrill , 701 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In Burrill , this court held that "[i]n assessing whether a fee award is appropriate, the court must ‘determine the parti......
-
Sellers v. Sellers, 1D10–2739.
...spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties.” See Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1202; see also Burrill v. Burrill, 701 So.2d 354, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). A decision to award permanent alimony must be based on an assessment of the needs of one spouse and the ability of the......
-
BISKIE v. BISKIE, CASE NO. 1D09-4961
...a 15-year marriage falls somewhere between a short-term and a long-term marriage, in the "gray" area. See Burrill v. Burrill, 701 So. 2d 354, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As a result, there is no presumption in favor or against permanent alimony. Id. An award is made based on a consideration of......
-
Attorneys' fees and costs
...available to each party without either party having to look beyond resources under his or her individual control); Burrill v. Burrill, 701 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (trial court’s denial of attorneys’ fees, which was predicated on finding that both parties borrowed money from their par......
-
Appellate court trends in permanent alimony for "Gray Area" divorces: 1997-2007.
...of the marriage persuasive when awarding permanent alimony in gray area marriages. The First District did so in Burrill v. Burrill, 701 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), when it awarded permanent alimony in a 16-year marriage based in part on the fact that the marriage was in the upper end of......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...(Fla. 1st DCA 2002) Grimes v. approx. 49 Grimes 12 770 So. 2d 293 years (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) Burrill v. 6 years 40 $6-7 per Burrill hour; 701 So. 2d 354 (potential (Fla. 1st DCA to earn 1997) $18-20,000 per year) Merkin v. Merkin 32 years 53 $914 per 804 So. 2d 595 month (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) B......