Moorehead v. Moorehead, No. 98-1712
| Decision Date | 08 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-0360., No. 98-1712 |
| Citation | 745 So.2d 549 |
| Parties | Ronald MOOREHEAD, Appellant, v. Pauline Thomas MOOREHEAD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Susan R. Brown of Susan R. Brown, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.
Linda M. Smith of Law Office of Linda M. Smith, Miami, for appellee.
The husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage arguing that the trial court committed multiple errors in its distribution of the parties' assets, the award of permanent instead of rehabilitative alimony, the amount of alimony awarded, and the award of attorney's fees to the wife. We affirm on all issues except for the requirement that the husband maintain life insurance to secure the alimony obligation, which we reverse.
The parties had been married for seventeen years at the time of the divorce. While they had one child who was an adult by the time of trial, she continued to reside in her parent's home. The parties' lifestyle was very modest, described as lower middle class. The wife was 43 years old and was employed part-time by a friend, installing and repairing water filters. She earned $5 per hour cash, on which she paid no tax. Prior to the marriage, the wife had attended a vocational college but did not earn a degree and had done very poorly in several of her courses. There was no agreement that the wife stay at home to raise the parties' child, and the wife had sporadic employment during the marriage. Early in the marriage she worked as a nurse's aide and also cut lawns. The husband testified that he encouraged the wife to return to school, and had tried to help her find a better job throughout the marriage. The husband has been employed by FP & L for over twenty years and was the family's main source of support.
A vocational expert testified at trial that although the wife's intelligence was slightly below average, she was capable of obtaining full-time employment. Based on that finding, he opined that she was currently underemployed. While he believed that attending vocational and community college would give her better skills in order to be self-sufficient, he also gave several examples of jobs the wife could obtain without education. The one which appeared to interest the wife the most was that of a child day care worker, which pays approximately $7.50 per hour. He also testified that within three to five years she could potentially earn up to $35,000 per year as a building inspector, and he mentioned other higher paying jobs. Unfortunately, he did not have a set plan or an idea of the costs to attain a majority of these suggested positions. Ultimately, he admitted that without any additional education the wife could only earn approximately $8-10 per hour.
Based on the testimony, the court awarded permanent alimony in the amount of $500 bi-weekly, imputing to the wife an earning ability of $1,000 per month. The husband complains that the court erred in awarding permanent alimony rather than rehabilitative alimony where the court appointed vocational expert had stated that with proper education and a few years the wife could become self-sufficient. In Walter v. Walter, 464 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla.1985), the court rejected the proposition that permanent alimony should be utilized "only upon a showing of lack of capacity for self-support and only as a last resort." Instead, and as codified in section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (1997), the wife's capacity for self-support is only one factor to consider in whether to award permanent or rehabilitative alimony.
Considering the factors listed in the statute, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony. This was a seventeen year marriage, making it more on the side of a long-term marriage than one in the grey area. See Cruz v. Cruz, 574 So.2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
. The wife had only a limited ability to support herself. Her employment history consisted of unskilled jobs in which she earned close to a minimum hourly wage. While the vocational expert testified that with education the wife could earn up to $35,000, the trial court obviously viewed that claim with skepticism, given her prior educational experience, her poor grades, and her below average intelligence. Moreover, the expert did not lay out any type...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alpha v. Alpha
...v. Lapham, 778 So.2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Richardson v. Richardson, 722 So.2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 25. Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 26. Hill v. Hooten, 776 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 27. See Parker v. Parker, 655 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Tassone v. ......
-
Van Maerssen v. Gerdts, No. 4D19-133
...to protect the alimony recipient .’ " Forgione v. Forgione , 845 So. 2d 968, 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Moorehead v. Moorehead , 745 So. 2d 549, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ). The "demonstrated need" must be supported by competent, substantial evidence . Id. at 969–70. Galstyan , 85 So. 3......
-
Hill v. Hooten, 5D00-1095.
...574 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), a marriage of seventeen years was recognized as a long-term marriage, and in Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the Fourth District characterized a seventeen year marriage "more on the side of a long-term marriage than one in t......
-
Forgione v. Forgione
...policy to secure alimony "is justified only if there is a demonstrated need to protect the alimony recipient." Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So.2d 549, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Privett v. Privett, 535 So.2d 663, 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). Generally, a trial judge "should" make a findin......
-
Appellate court trends in permanent alimony for "Gray Area" divorces: 1997-2007.
...So. 2d 167, 169 n.2 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2000). (17) Williams v. Williams, 904 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2005). (18) Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 4th D.C.A 1999). (19) Pollock v. Pollock, 722 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1998). (20) Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th ......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...v. Baker 18 years early 40s $24,000 763 So. 2d 493 per year (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) Moorehead v. 17 years 43 $1000 net Moorehead per month 745 So. 2d 549 imputed (Fla. 4th DCA by trial 1999) court Nelson v. 12 years $12,000 per Nelson year 721 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) McHugh v. less than ......
-
Discovery and use of experts
...The court has the discretion to disregard the testimony of any expert, including a vocational expert. [ Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(payee spouse’s capacity for self-support is only one factor to consider in whether to award permanent alimony; where there was 1......