Gildea v. Gildea

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; SCHOONOVER
• Citation: Gildea v. Gildea, 593 So.2d 1212 (Fla. App. 1992)
• Decision Date: 21 February 1992
• Docket Number: No. 90-03503,90-03503
• Parties: 17 Fla. L. Weekly D529 Donald J. GILDEA, Appellant, v. Sharyn T. GILDEA, Appellee.

Page 1212

593 So.2d 1212

17 Fla. L. Weekly D529

Donald J. GILDEA, Appellant, v. Sharyn T. GILDEA, Appellee.

No. 90-03503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District.

Feb. 21, 1992.

Joan LoBianco Walker of Joan LoBianco Walker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

James W. Dodson of Carlson, Meissner, Webb, Dodson & Hart, P.A., Clearwater, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which the husband contends the trial court erred by awarding the wife $1,500 monthly permanent periodic alimony. We agree.

At the time the wife filed the petition for dissolution, the parties had been married twenty-one years. They had three children, nineteen, seventeen, and fourteen years of age. The husband was employed in medical sales during much of the marriage and earned a gross monthly income of $4,586. Six months after the petition was filed, the husband was fired from his job due to a general decline in industry sales and reduction in personnel. He began drawing weekly unemployment compensation of $200. At the time of the final hearing, the gross monthly income of the wife was $1,120, and the husband was still drawing the same unemployment compensation.

The husband sought reemployment. He secured interviews by contacting approximately ten medical personnel agencies and by making direct calls to companies. In his field, the interview process of interested companies includes two or three interviews taking two to three months to complete. At the time of the final judgment, the husband had completed two interview processes, but the companies had hired other individuals.

The husband testified he had worked all his life, did not enjoy unemployment, and found it humiliating. He also testified that since he became unemployed, his wife had left the marital home and he had moved back in to care for the children. He had supported himself and the children mostly through savings and equity loans on the marital home. He had also borrowed $2,500 on a VISA account, was cashing in his stocks, and had requested permission to withdraw all the money from his retirement plan.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the wife was entitled to permanent periodic alimony. Once a party's entitlement to permanent periodic alimony is established, however, the amount is based on the needs of one spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980)....