Costa v. Costa
| Decision Date | 21 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D06-688.,4D06-688. |
| Citation | 951 So.2d 924 |
| Parties | Giovanni COSTA, Appellant, v. Janet L. COSTA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy W. Gregoire of Bunnell Woulfe Kirschbaum Keller McIntyre Gregoire & Klein, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Margherita Downey of Law Offices of Glantz & Glantz, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.
Appellant, Giovanni Costa, appeals two issues relating to the trial court's order of dissolution of marriage with the former wife, Appellee, Janet Costa. In the final order, the trial court awarded Janet permanent periodic alimony in the amount of $750 per month, as well as lump sum alimony of $500, and exclusive use and possession of the marital home until the children reached the age of majority. When the children reached the age of majority, the order provided that the home would be sold, and Janet would be given a credit for 100% of the mortgage, taxes, and insurance and maintenance payments she had made. Giovanni argues that the trial court erred in awarding Janet $750 in permanent periodic alimony, as she was fully capable of working full-time and supporting herself, and in awarding her a 100% credit for all payments made while in receipt of the house. We find merit in both of Giovanni's arguments and reverse and remand.
Alimony awards are reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard. Nichols v. Nichols, 907 So.2d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). "If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion." Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980) (quoting Delno v. Mkt. St. Ry. Co., 124 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir.1942)). "In determining whether to award permanent periodic alimony, the trial court must consider the needs of the spouse requesting the alimony and the ability of the other spouse to make alimony payments." Segall v. Segall, 708 So.2d 983, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). "The trial court is required to consider the statutory factors of section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes, and the failure to consider these enumerated factors, or to make factual findings related to these factors, is reversible error." Nichols, 907 So.2d at 622. In most cases, permanent periodic alimony is awarded where one party has sacrificed a career for the advancement of the other's career, the earnings of one party are much smaller than the other's and there is no evidence showing that the lesser earning party can increase their earnings to a more equal level. See Fontana v. Fontana, 617 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). "The purpose of permanent periodic alimony is not to divide future income to establish financial equality." Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So.2d 927, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
We find the trial court's award of alimony was not an abuse of discretion. After listening to the evidence, the trial court determined that Janet had a need for alimony and Giovanni had the ability to pay some alimony. The parties had been married for approximately eighteen years and had two minor children. Throughout the marriage, Giovanni was the primary breadwinner, taking care of the household bills, etc.
However, while the record supports the finding that Janet was in need of alimony, we find the trial court should have awarded bridge-the-gap or temporary alimony rather than permanent periodic alimony. At trial, Janet's counsel asked only that Janet be awarded Other than the initial complaint, there was no request for periodic permanent alimony. Janet's request indicated that she was in need of alimony until the children reached the age of majority. Therefore, we find the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony exceeds Janet's needs, as put forth by her at trial. See Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So.2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We reverse the trial court's award of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Linstroth v. Dorgan
...temporary appellate fees and costs awarded to the former wife. A reasonable award should not be disturbed on appeal. Costa v. Costa, 951 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Nichols v. Nichols, 907 So.2d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (F......
-
Alcantara v. Alcantara, No. 3D08-1265.
...at home caring for the family, rather than pursued a career, for a significant time period during the marriage. See Costa v. Costa, 951 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Byers v. Byers, 910 So.2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Walker v. Walker, 818 So.2d 711, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Knoff v. Kn......
-
Addie v. Coale
...award accordingly.Alimony A trial court's alimony determination is reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard. Costa v. Costa, 951 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). If reasonable minds “could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said tha......
-
Leonardis v. Leonardis
...she concedes the husband's need for alimony. Alimony awards are reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard. Costa v. Costa, 951 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). "If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1270 (Tenn. App. 2000). [574] See: Alaska: Stanhope v. Stanhope, 305 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2013). Florida: Costa v. Costa, 951 So.2d 924 (Fla. App. 2000). Louisiana: Ball v. Ball, 757 So.2d 824 (La. App. 2000). New York: Uttamchandani v. Uttamchandani, 175 A.D.3d 1457, 109 N.......
-
Partitioning real property in dissolution of marriage actions and suits between unmarried co-tenants: credits, setoffs, ouster, division, and sale.
...could be considered and applied against the former spouse's one-half interest in the real property upon sale. (13) Costa v. Costa, 951 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2007); McCarthy v. McCarthy, 922 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2005); Biondo v. Powers, 743 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. (14) Id. (1......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...receive a setoff of half of the fair rental value and his share of the rents collected on the parties’ properties. [ Costa v. Costa , 951 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (wife should receive credit, upon sale, for 50% of expenses incurred prior to sale while in possession of the marital home......