Rosecan v. Springer, No. 4D01-2930
Decision Date | 16 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 4D01-2930, No. 4D01-4478. |
Citation | 845 So.2d 927 |
Parties | Lauren Richard ROSECAN, Appellant, v. Carol Ann SPRINGER, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cynthia Greene of Cynthia Greene & Associates, P.A., Miami and Paula Revene of Paula Revene, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Neil B. Jagolinzer of Christiansen & Jacknin, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The former husband appeals a final dissolution order and raises two issues. We find the award of permanent periodic alimony in need of reversal and affirm the order in all other respects.
Before we begin our analysis, we pause to acknowledge the work of the trial judge in this case. This judge worked diligently, capturing all relevant facts, and dissected this complicated dissolution with the skill of a surgeon. It is obvious to us that great thought was given to the court's decision. The trial judge dedicated long hours to articulating its ruling. We also acknowledge counsel for restricting their arguments on appeal to essential points and for arguing their respective positions in a clear and professional manner.
With that said, we are compelled to reverse the award of permanent periodic alimony to the former wife.
Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established during the marriage of the parties. In determining whether to award permanent periodic alimony, the court must consider the needs of the spouse requesting the alimony and the ability of the other spouse to make alimony payments.
Zeigler v. Zeigler, 635 So.2d 50, 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (citations omitted). The Florida Legislature has identified the criteria to use in making this determination: the standard of living established during the marriage, duration of the marriage, age and physical and emotional condition of the parties, financial resources of each party, time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training, contribution to the marriage, and all sources of income available to either party. § 61.08(2)(a)-(g), Fla. Stat. (2001).
It is not within our purview to reweigh the facts. This trial court did an excellent job at that. Nevertheless, it is the trial court's specific findings of fact that drew our attention to the error in its conclusion.
The trial court specifically found the following:
With all of these findings, the court awarded a permanent periodic alimony of $20,000.00 a month, taxable to the wife. We cannot reconcile this conclusion with the court's finding of the wife's need being $18,289.00. This is especially true in light of the passive income to be generated from the equitable distribution to the wife and the wife's earning capacity now and in the future. The figures simply do not compute.
We are mindful of the narrow scope of our review—abuse of discretion....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alcantara v. Alcantara, No. 3D08-1265.
... ... life to a former spouse as they have been established during the marriage of the parties." Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So.2d 927, 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In determining whether a party is entitled to ... ...
- Murkerson v. Murkerson
-
Donoff v. Donoff
... ... Messina, 676 So.2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 771 So.2d at 1141; see also Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So.2d 927, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that Mallard bars a court from using ... ...
- Sherlock v. Sherlock
-
Modification actions for an increase in periodic alimony.
...Brock v. Brock, 690 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1997); Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1999); and Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2003), and 898 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2005). (2) Tarkow v. Tarkow, 805 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2001); Schwab v. S......
-
Alimony for the heiress? Imputing income to assets: the important question is precisely what income, if any, should be attributed or imputed to which of the marital and nonmarital assets owned by the parties after distribution.
...should that strategy be used to advance an "inability to pay" argument or, conversely, to enhance a needs claim? In Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the trial court found that the wife had minimized her income from her rental property by collecting no rent in one ins......