Roy v. Roy, 87-0491
| Decision Date | 02 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-0491,87-0491 |
| Citation | 522 So.2d 75,13 Fla. L. Weekly 564 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 564 Elizabeth I. ROY, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Robert C. ROY, Jr., Appellee/Cross Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James P. O'Flarity of Law, Offices of James P. O'Flarity, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.
Neil B. Jagolinzer of Christiansen, Jacknin & Tuthill, West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross appellant.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
Only one point merits discussion and reversal. The trial court erred in providing that, "The court specifically reserves jurisdiction to make an award of alimony to the wife in the future should it become warranted." We deem this error because there is no basis in the record which supports such a provision.
The question of whether to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future lies within the court's discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Brown v. Brown, 440 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Chayka v. Chayka, 361 So.2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 1122 (Fla.1979); Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As we understand it, the rule, generally, is that where there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of alimony, the court should retain jurisdiction, Brown v. Brown, 440 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Otherwise, the court should not retain jurisdiction. In other words, there must presently appear in the record foreseeable circumstances to take place in the future as would at that time support an award of alimony.
The criteria governing an award of alimony are well known. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Here, the governing circumstances of the parties are virtually the same in all material respects and there is no basis for preferring one spouse over the other as concerns alimony. See Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Moore v. Moore, 490 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
We reverse the provision in the judgment which reserves jurisdiction to award alimony to the wife in the future. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulbrandsen v. Gulbrandsen
...in the future that would warrant an award of alimony, the court should retain jurisdiction.") (emphasis added) (quoting Roy v. Roy, 522 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). For good and sufficient reason, including the fact the trial judge is on site and has the ability to observe and evaluat......
-
Porter v. Porter
...to strike the objectionable sentence from Paragraph 4. See Llopis v. Llopis, 731 So.2d 719, 720 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Roy v. Roy, 522 So.2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The parties were married in January 1989, had two children, and separated for the final time after 12-1/2 years of marriage.......
-
Stock v. Stock
...the court's discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Strahan v. Strahan, 605 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Roy v. Roy, 522 So.2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Here, the evidence shows a likelihood that there will be a change in circumstances that would enable the husband to meet his o......
-
Fleck v. Fleck
...of alimony, the court should retain jurisdiction.'" Esteva v. Rodriguez, 913 So.2d 684, 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Roy v. Roy, 522 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). Despite the parties' substantially disparate earning capacities and the Wife's need for alimony, it does not appear that......