Green v. Green
| Decision Date | 13 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | 94-3504,Nos. 94-2339,s. 94-2339 |
| Citation | 672 So.2d 49 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D631 Kenneth J. GREEN, Appellant, v. Ellen T. GREEN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Consolidated appeals and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County; Virginia Gay Broome, Judge. No. CD 93-1548 FA.
Kevin F. Richardson of Clyatt & Richardson, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Jane Kreusler-Walsh, P.A., and Neil Jagolinzer of Christiansen & Jacknin, West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant.
These two consolidated cases arise from the dissolution of marriage proceedings between the appellant, a golf professional, and the appellee, his wife. The husband challenges the awards of both permanent and rehabilitative alimony, child support, attorney's fees and costs, and the determination of the value and characterization of assets in equitable distribution. In other words, the husband was generally unhappy with the entire final judgment. The wife cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to restore her former name, which the husband concedes was error. We reverse the awards of alimony and child support, but affirm the equitable distribution and valuations and award of attorney's fees and costs.
This was a short-term marriage. The parties were married for approximately six years at the time of the filing of dissolution. The marriage had been a second marriage for each party, who both had a child or children from their previous marriages. This marriage produced one child. Prior to the marriage, the wife worked as a water exercise instructor on a part-time basis, although she had a bachelor's decree in educational psychology. After the marriage, the wife did not work at all. When the wife consented to marry the husband, they agreed that she would travel extensively with the husband on his golf tours, supporting him emotionally and socially on the tour. While the wife states in her brief that they had an agreement that she would not work while their child was young, we find no record support for this statement. Our review of the record shows that both parties testified that the husband's expectation and their agreement was that she would not work so that she could travel and be with him. In fact, on some tournaments she had to leave her children at home, which bothered her, but she fulfilled her role as his wife. The trial court found that she had made a significant contribution to his career through her efforts.
The wife came into the marriage with no assets. The husband had considerable assets and added to them during the marriage with his golf earnings. The husband made a substantial income, and the parties lived very well. An accountant testified that the family, while together, had living expenses of $30,000 per month, although the trial court found that the husband's monthly net income was only $15,960. The trial court equitably divided the marital assets on a 50/50 basis, and the wife received $697,893 in assets less the mortgage on the marital home. From the income-producing assets within the wife's share of equitable distribution, she receives an after-tax investment income of $1,420 per month.
The wife's vocational expert testified that the wife could obtain a teaching certificate within one year which would allow her to teach, earning a starting salary of $27,000. However, the expert thought it would take another year for her to find a job. Her expert further testified that the wife did not give up much of a career to marry the husband.
At the time of the final judgment, the wife was 36 years old, and the husband was 35. Both were in good health. The wife has lost no career opportunities as a result of the marriage. The wife has gained substantial assets from the marriage, leaving the marriage with a comfortable estate.
The trial court awarded the wife $3,000 per month in permanent alimony, primarily because the trial court found that she could not maintain the standard of living of the marriage without it. We hold that this was error. This was a short-term marriage, and generally permanent alimony is inappropriate unless a genuine inequity is created by the dissolution. Geddes v. Geddes, 530 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In short-term marriages, the standard of living occupies considerably less prominence than in long-term marriages and is certainly not dispositive of a decision to award permanent alimony. See Kremer v. Kremer, 595 So.2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Moreover, the facts of this case follow closely the fact pattern in Wright v. Wright, 613 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In that case, we held that the wife of the five year marriage that produced one child was not entitled to permanent alimony where the wife left the marriage with substantial assets, even though she would not be able to support herself in the extraordinarily lavish lifestyle in which the parties had lived during the marriage. We wrote:
As we stated in Geddes, the former husband's desire for the support obligation to be temporary must be balanced against the former wife's lost opportunities and ability to become self-supporting. The distribution scheme in the instant appeal enables the wife to leave this marriage at the age of thirty-nine with a great deal more than what she possessed when she entered it. Although we recognize that a short marriage alone does not preclude a permanent alimony award, the present record, considering her share of the equitable distribution, does not support that the wife is permanently without the means of self-support as a result of anything that transpired during the marriage. Kremer. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded the wife permanent alimony....
Id. at 1333 (citations omitted). Similar cases should yield similar results, and this case is very similar to Wright. See also Childers v. Childers, 640 So.2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). This is not the exceptional case where a genuine inequity is created by a failure to award permanent alimony. The permanent alimony award is reversed.
The trial court also awarded the wife five years of $3,000 per month rehabilitative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levy v. Levy, No. 2D03-2903
...Kremer, 595 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (citing Geddes v. Geddes, 530 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)); see also Green v. Green, 672 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Cornell v. Smith, 616 So.2d 629, 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Or, to define the problem further, the question is whether th......
-
Borchard v. Borchard
...rehabilitative alimony awards to "bridge the gap"); McHugh v. McHugh, 702 So.2d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (same); Green v. Green, 672 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (same); Shea v. Shea, 572 So.2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (same); Whitley v. Whitley, 535 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (commenting ......
-
Escudero v. Escudero, 98-1833.
...that a six year marriage also falls into the gray area. Pollock v. Pollock, 722 So.2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). But see, Green v. Green, 672 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (6 year marriage is a short-term marriage). 10. § 61.08, Fla. Stat. ...
-
Segall v. Segall, s. 96-2328
...award is generally inappropriate in a short-term marriage unless the dissolution created a genuine inequity. See Green v. Green, 672 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(permanent alimony award in six-year marriage with one child denied where wife left marriage with substantial assets and did n......
-
Alimony and support
...alimony award entitling wife to 12 percent of husband’s taxable income in each taxable year erroneous as matter of law); Green v. Green, 672 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (permanent periodic alimony award in 6-year marriage with one child denied where wife left marriage with substantial ass......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...v. Athey, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D788 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2003). (11) Gandul v. Gandul, 696 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1997); Green v. Green, 672 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1996); Zelahi v. Zelahi, 646 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1994); Shea v. Shea, 572 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1990); Vena v. Vet......
-
Child support myths and truths: exploring the assumptions underlying Florida's statutory guidelines.
...from gross income for court-ordered support for other children which is actually paid, F.S. [sections] 61.30(3)(f), Green v. Green, 672 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and specifically provides in [sections] 61.30(12), "the existence of subsequent children should not as a general rule be con......
-
Appellate Court trends in rehabilitative alimony.
...the rehabilitative plan presented by the wife requested from $12,000 to $17,000 for tuition for her rehabilitation. In Green v. Green, 672 So. 2d 49,52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife rehabilitative alimony for a period of five years. The Fourth Dist......