Wagner v. Wagner
| Decision Date | 28 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1373,79-1373 |
| Citation | 383 So.2d 987 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jean B. WAGNER, Appellant, v. L. Reginald WAGNER, Appellee. |
Steven A. Hirsch and H. T. Maloney of Patterson, Maloney, Blyler & Feige, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
James A. Belcher of Law Offices of James J. Belcher, Pompano Beach, for appellee.
Upon termination of a marriage that spanned nearly twenty years and produced two children, still minors, appellant was awarded $500.00 a month for five years as rehabilitative alimony. She appeals. We reverse that award.
The allowance for child support and provisions pertaining to property interests are within the ambit of reasonable discretion and we do not concern ourselves with those.
Nor do we find the amount of the alimony award such that reasonable men could not differ as to its reasonableness.
We are, however, troubled by, and we therefore address, the legal question of the characterization of the alimony award as rehabilitative.
The record discloses that while the wife has obtained a real estate license and has some slight experience in modeling, neither of those fields offers any promise of a significant yield of income. She is primarily a teacher currently employed at a salary of $12,000.00 per annum with every expectation of modest, periodic, incremental increases. There is no evidence that she ever earned more nor any indication that an expectation of substantial increases would be justified. Under these circumstances there is no "rehabilitation" possible nor "habilitation" to greater financial success reasonably to be anticipated.
The award should have been for permanent alimony. McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So.2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Kvittem v. Kvittem, 365 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Application of the correct legal rule is not a matter of discretion; consequently, characterizing the alimony award as rehabilitative is erroneous as a matter of law. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1980 FLW 59 (Fla. Jan. 31, 1980). We reverse on that basis.
We do not detail the financial comparison between the parties as that goes more to the amount than to the character of the alimony award. As indicated previously, the amount of the award, while not so unreasonable as to be an abuse of discretion, was low under the circumstances revealed by the record before us. Since the amount was established in the context of a rehabilitative setting it will necessarily have to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Cenzo v. De Cenzo
...a matter of discretion. Quick v. Quick, 400 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (Wentworth, J., concurring & dissenting); Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Our review, therefore, is not restricted to the abuse of discretion or reasonableness standard of Canakaris v. Canakaris,......
-
Quick v. Quick, UU-347
...than permanent presents a question of law, and "application of the correct legal rule is not a matter of discretion." Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Our review on that issue, therefore, is not governed by the reasonableness test of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 119......
-
Kaylor v. Kaylor, 78-2167
...of this long term marriage would usually result in an entitlement to permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony. Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So.2d 987 (Fla 4th DCA 1980); Bashaw v. Bashaw, 382 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So.2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Patin v. Pati......
-
Holland v. Holland
...of rehabilitative alimony to be proper, the evidence must show a potential or actual capacity for self-support. See Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Yohem v. Yohem, 324 So.2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 297 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Reback v. Rebac......