Lightcap v. Lightcap, No. 3D08-1655.
Decision Date | 29 July 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 3D08-1655. |
Citation | 14 So.3d 259 |
Parties | Irvin J. LIGHTCAP, Appellant, v. Betty Jean LIGHTCAP, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Roberta Fine, Candida A. Cobb, and Stephen Isherwood, Key West, for appellant.
Richard J. Fowler, Key West, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN, SUAREZ, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
Irvin J. Lightcap ("the former husband") appeals the portion of the final judgment of dissolution that awards Betty Jean Lightcap ("the former wife") nominal alimony of $1.00 per year. We affirm.
In this case, the parties were married for over thirty years. For most of the marriage, the husband was highly skilled and well paid. Concomitantly, the former wife worked in clerical positions, until the end of the marriage when she secured a well paying job. Subsequently, the former husband retired and contended that he is unable to work.
The trial court, however, found that the former husband was highly skilled and employable, but he voluntarily chose not to work despite his ability to do so. The trial court found that the former husband was capable of earning from $40,000 per year to $200,000 per year. The trial court entered final judgment and awarded the former wife nominal alimony of $1.00 per year.
On appeal, the former husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the former wife nominal alimony of $1.00 per year. He argues that the former wife has a much higher post-dissolution income and should not be entitled to any type of alimony. He further contends that he is unable to work due to medical reasons.
The former wife asserts that the former husband has no medical reason prohibiting him from employment. She also maintains that she has a right to nominal alimony in light of the long-term marriage. She asserts that this would give her the right to seek increased alimony should the former husband's future income change and her financial condition deteriorate. We agree with the former wife.
Because this is a long-term marriage, permanent alimony is normally appropriate. See Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So.2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ( ). Permanent alimony can be in the form of a nominal amount. 973 So.2d at 676.
A trial court's decision on whether to award permanent, periodic alimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. 973 So.2d at 676. A trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. Hill
...alimony], although not now appropriate because of the husband's inability to pay, may become so in the future."); Lightcap v. Lightcap, 14 So. 3d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Schmidt, 997 So. 2d at 454; Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672, 676-77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Bridges v. Bridges, 842......
-
Gulbrandsen v. Gulbrandsen
...witnesses, the discretion to make either type of award is reposed in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Lightcap v. Lightcap, 14 So.3d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So.2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). I am not aware of any case which holds that an appellate......
-
Koscher v. Koscher
...alimony award with the abuse of discretion standard. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980) ; Lightcap v. Lightcap, 14 So.3d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “[W]here the record does not contain substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court's findings regarding......
-
Turcotte v. Turcotte
...but for the paying spouse's current inability to pay, which is reasonably expected to change in the future. See Lightcap v. Lightcap, 14 So.3d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (affirming an award of nominal alimony where the former wife was earning more than the former husband, but the former hu......
-
Alimony and support
...court should consider making an award of at least a nominal amount of permanent periodic alimony to the wife); Lightcap v. Lightcap , 14 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (an award of nominal alimony is appropriate where the recipient spouse would be entitled to alimony but for the paying spous......