Patterson v. Patterson, 73--1416
Decision Date | 06 June 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 73--1416,73--1416 |
Citation | 315 So.2d 104 |
Parties | Eloise PATTERSON, Appellant, v. D. E. PATTERSON, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Saylor of Farish & Farish, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Michael B. Davis of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Whal, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution adopting the report of a Special Master. Among other settlement provisions, the wife was awarded $700 per month rehabilitative alimony for two years and the husband was awarded the wife's interest in certain business property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety. The wife appeals these awards, requesting permanent periodic alimony and the return of her interest in the business property. We agree with her contentions on these points and reverse.
The parties were married in 1938. They had two children, now aged thirty-five and twenty-three. The wife worked in her husband's office for a period of twenty years, but was not paid a salary. Her duties consisted of being a receptionist and doing simple bookkeeping. She received no salary, and nothing was paid into Social Security funds on her behalf. The wife is fifty-six years of age, and has a ninth grade education. The husband is sixty-one and is a physician. It is undisputed that in 1972 he had an income of at least $28,000. According to the undisputed testimony of a qualified employment agent, the best employment Mrs. Patterson could expect to obtain would be limited receptionist work, at a salary of $70 to $80 per week, at best. This presuming she could compete at all in that job market. There is testimony that such positions are more readily filled by younger persons. We take issue with the award of 'rehabilitative' alimony to such a person, whose life has been spent raising a family, working intermittently without recompense to help her husband's business, and who is at an age where her job outlook is--to use the words of the employment agent--'dismal.' In Reback v. Reback, 296 So.2d 541 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974), the court gave an accurate description of the nature, purpose and application of rehabilitative alimony:
(Footnote references omitted.)
The Reback case is analogous to the instant situation. This appellant will be 58 at the termination of the rehabilitative alimony. The record is devoid of any evidence that she will be rehabilitated. In fact, it supports the contention that she will not be able to properly support herself. In that case, she is entitled to periodic alimony with respect to her needs and upon her husband's ability to pay. We hold that the award of only rehabilitative alimony was error in this situation, that the husband has the ability to pay, and that periodic alimony in the amount of $700 per month is justified in the record. We ground our decision upon Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So.2d 60 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1971):
Id. at 61. (Emphasis added);
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ugarte v. Ugarte, s. 91-401
...discretion to consider that fact in making its award of permanent periodic alimony. Hamlet, 583 So.2d at 656 citing Patterson v. Patterson, 315 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 20 The husband claims he simply does not have the income to meet the support obligations orde......
-
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez
...of income-generating properties acquired during marriage." Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980); Patterson v. Patterson, 315 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 20 (Fla.1976). As a general rule, however, it must be remembered that permanent periodic ali......
-
Hawkesworth v. Hawkesworth
...Arthur's income, we find the award of only rehabilitative alimony to be erroneous. See Reback, supra; Lash, supra; Patterson v. Patterson, 315 So.2d 104 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Sommese v. Sommese, 324 So.2d 647 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So.2d 673 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Havin......
-
Canakaris v. Canakaris
...such inequities as might result from the allocation of income-generating properties acquired during the marriage. Patterson v. Patterson, 315 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). As a general rule, permanent periodic alimony is terminated upon the death of either spouse or the remarriage of the r......