Pirino v. Pirino, 87-1417

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: ORFINGER
• Citation: Pirino v. Pirino, 525 So.2d 1028, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1317 (Fla. App. 1988)
• Decision Date: 02 June 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-1417,87-1417
• Parties: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1317 Marianne D. PIRINO, Appellant, v. Raymond J. PIRINO, Appellee.

Page 1028

525 So.2d 1028

13 Fla. L. Weekly 1317

Marianne D. PIRINO, Appellant, v. Raymond J. PIRINO, Appellee.

No. 87-1417.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fifth District.

June 2, 1988.

George E. Adams of Adams, Hill, Fulford & Morgan, Orlando, for appellant.

Andrea L. Cain of Cain & Ewald, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Judge.

In this appeal from a judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former wife raises several issues, only one of which has merit, viz, that the amount of permanent alimony awarded was too low under the circumstances of this case. In dissolving the 28 year marriage, the trial court awarded the sum of $500 per month as permanent alimony to the 46 year old wife, who had not been employed for many years, finding that the wife could be employed and receive at least minimum wage.

The wife had worked part time early in the marriage, while raising three children, now grown, to help put the husband through dental school and then worked part of the time in the husband's dental office, without pay. During the year prior to the divorce, the husband earned approximately $112,000. ¹

Under the circumstances of this case we consider the award of permanent alimony to be insufficient and an abuse of discretion. Even if the wife were fully employed at the minimum wage, which the trial court considered she could earn, or at the rate of $7.00 per hour, which the husband's expert testified the wife could expect to earn to begin with, there would be a great disparity in the parties' earnings. Even assuming the wife could gross approximately $14,500 per year (earning $7.00 per hour) and received permanent alimony of $6,000 per year, the husband's income would still be almost four times the wife's income. There is no practical way the wife could support...