Pirino v. Pirino, 88-2160
| Decision Date | 07 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2160,88-2160 |
| Citation | 549 So.2d 219,14 Fla. L. Weekly 2065 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2065 Raymond J. PIRINO, Appellant, v. Marianne D. PIRINO, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Andrea L. Cain and John M. Cain of Cain & Ewald, Orlando, for appellant.
George E. Adams of Adams, Hill, Fulford & Morgan, Orlando, for appellee.
Raymond J. Pirino (husband) appeals the trial court's order awarding $3,000 per month permanent periodic alimony to the appellee, Marianne E. Pirino (wife). We reverse since it appears that the award is based on a misunderstanding.
This is the second appearance of this case 1 before this court. In Pirino I, we reversed the award of $500 per month permanent periodic alimony as being insufficient and an abuse of discretion. On remand we directed the trial court:
[T]o award such sum as is in keeping with the wife's needs and the husband's superior ability to pay and the standard of living of the parties.
A review of the record of the remand hearing discloses that the trial judge believed he was prohibited by our opinion from any consideration of the prior distribution of assets between the parties, or the wife's ability to find employment and contribute to her own support. He further interpreted our opinion to hold that the wife had a right to maintain her marital standard of living regardless of the husband's ability to pay. These interpretations are not mandated by our opinion in Pirino I, nor are they correct as a matter of law.
The value of the property apportioned to the wife may be considered in awarding alimony. See Marston v. Marston, 484 So.2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986), Mendonsa v. Mendonsa, 479 So.2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Murphy v. Murphy, 475 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) and Reback v. Reback, 296 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) cert. denied, 312 So.2d 737 (Fla.1975). Additionally, both parties' earning abilities are among the factors which should be considered in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
The standard of living of the parties prior to a divorce is only one factor to be examined when setting the amount of alimony. Canakaris, supra. The primary criteria remains the wife's need coupled with the husband's ability to pay. Potter v. Potter, 477 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Clearly the husband cannot be required to maintain the wife's standard of living when this maintenance stretches beyond his financial capacity. Indeed, it is the exceptional case when a couple's resources and earnings prove sufficient to maintain two independent households in the same manner as the original household. 2
At the remand hearing the wife submitted an exhibit entitled "AMOUNT NEEDED TO EQUALIZE INCOME IF WIFE EARNED $7.00 PER HOUR ". The record is unclear what action, if any, the judge took in attempting to equalize the parties' income, although the size of the alimony award when compared with the wife's exhibit seems to indicate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marsh v. Marsh, 88-2371
...in this day and time everyone should be covered by health insurance but everyone cannot yet afford it.4 See e.g., Pirino v. Pirino, 549 So.2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).5 The $476.63 monthly allowance for support for two children is about right as it constitutes 34.37% of the husband's net att......
-
Siegel v. Siegel
...78 (Fla.1976); Morand v. Stoneburner, 516 So.2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 879 (Fla.1988).2 See Pirino v. Pirino, 549 So.2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).3 Compare, e.g., Driscoll v. Driscoll, 547 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (court abused its discretion in failing to award......
-
McPeak v. McPeak, 90-1756
...1986); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So.2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 453 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1984); see also Pirino v. Pirino, 549 So.2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (Pirino II); Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So.2d 1336 (Fla.1986); Potter v. Potter, ......
-
Galligar v. Galligar
...61.08(2), Florida Statutes, to consider both the payee spouse's need and the payor spouse's ability to pay. See Pirino v. Pirino, 549 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); accord Rabbath v. Farid, 4 So.3d 778, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). A trial court may not require a payor spouse to make alimo......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...not enough to go around and there is no reasonable means for either party to maintain the lifestyle of the marriage. [ Pirino v. Pirino, 549 So. 2d 219, 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)(it is exceptional case when couple’s FINAL JUDGMENT; REHEARING; MOTIONS 20-17 Final Judgment; Rehearing; Motions R......