Walker v. Walker
| Decision Date | 21 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D00-4087.,2D00-4087. |
| Citation | 818 So.2d 711 |
| Parties | Paulette C. WALKER, Appellant, v. Jeffrey S. WALKER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Catherine Hanford of Law Offices of Catherine Hanford, P.A., Clearwater, and Cynthia L. Greene of Law Offices of Cynthia L. Greene & Associates, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.
Victoria M. Ho and Rebecca Y. Zung of Asbell, Coleman, Ho & Hazzard, P.A., Naples, for Appellee.
Paulette Walker, the former wife, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage and argues that the trial court erred by awarding to her rehabilitative alimony instead of permanent alimony. Because the final judgment does not include necessary findings to support the award, we reverse.
The Walkers were married in June 1985. Their children were born in 1987, 1989, and 1991. A petition for dissolution of marriage was filed in June 1997, and the final judgment of dissolution was entered in August 2000.
Jeffrey Walker, the former husband, earned a substantial income as a physician. The former wife stayed home to care for the children and did not work outside of the home during the marriage. The parties accumulated significant marital assets, including homes in Florida and Colorado, and they enjoyed a lifestyle commensurate with the income earned by the former husband.
The parties resolved certain issues, including equitable distribution, during the course of the proceedings. Alimony and child support were left for the trial court to resolve. The issues raised in this appeal concern the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony to the former wife.
Although the former wife initially sought temporary, rehabilitative, lump sum, and permanent periodic alimony, in her pretrial statement she requested over $28,000 per month as "permanent and lump sum" alimony. At trial, her attorney suggested that $20,000 per month would be an appropriate award. The former husband presented evidence that $5,200 per month would meet the former wife's needs. In closing argument, his attorney suggested that the trial court should award $4,500 per month in rehabilitative alimony, which should be reduced by $1,500 per month as each child reached the age of majority.
The trial court awarded rehabilitative alimony to the former wife in the amount of $6,000 per month, to be reduced by $2,000 per month as each child reached the age of majority. Rehabilitative alimony would end when the last child reached eighteen years of age. The trial court did not award lump sum or permanent periodic alimony. The record reflects a very substantial earnings disparity between the former wife and the former husband. The trial court found that after training and reacquiring her professional license, the former wife could earn approximately $32,000 annually as a manager of a phlebotomy department. The former husband's annual income at the time of trial exceeded $600,000. Thus, even with training and reentry into the work force, the former wife will earn an income that is a fraction of the former husband's income.
From its inception to the time of the filing of the petition for dissolution, the marriage lasted twelve years. Its duration falls within the gray area between short-term and long-term marriages, and there is no presumption in favor of or against an award of permanent alimony. Nelson v. Nelson, 721 So.2d 388, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So.2d 245, 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). A significant factor in determining whether permanent or temporary support is appropriate is a disparate earning capacity between the spouses. Nelson, 721 So.2d at 388-89. While the trial court has the discretion to determine whether permanent periodic alimony is appropriate under the circumstances of each case, Fulks v. Fulks, 558 So.2d 205, 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), rehabilitative alimony is not a substitute for permanent periodic alimony. Campbell v. Campbell, 685 So.2d 61, 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Moreover, again depending upon the circumstances of the case, permanent periodic alimony may be appropriate when one spouse has given up a career to stay at home for a significant period of time to raise the parties' children. See Knoff v. Knoff, 751 So.2d 167, 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
; Cardillo v. Cardillo, 707 So.2d 350, 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
While there was conflicting evidence presented to the trial court regarding the type and the amount of alimony that the former wife needed to maintain her lifestyle and to rehabilitate herself, the trial court awarded only rehabilitative alimony. The trial court made a finding that the former wife required six months and $500 to reacquire her professional license and to become re-employed in her field. There was evidence supporting this conclusion, but the trial court made no findings in support of the actual amount awarded and the periodic reductions as each child reached the age of majority. Also, there were no findings that demonstrate whether the trial court considered the former wife's ability to support herself during and after the rehabilitative period in a manner reasonably commensurate with the marital lifestyle. See Ghen v. Ghen, 575 So.2d 1342, 1344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
; O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So.2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Because the final judgment does not include adequate factual findings, it must be reversed. See Cardillo,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alpha v. Alpha
...So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). 15. Two semesters per year, over four years at $700 per year, totals $5,600.00. 16. See Walker v. Walker, 818 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Vick v. Vick, 675 So.2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 17. See Frechter v. Fr......
-
Greene v. Greene
...DCA 2001); Young v. Young, 677 So.2d 1301, 1305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). 8. Levy v. Levy, 862 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Walker v. Walker, 818 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 779 So.2d 272 (Fla.2000); Knoff v. Knoff, 751 So.2d 167 ......
-
Engle v. Engle
...2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reversing for failure to make findings required by sections 61.08 and 61.075(3) ); Walker v. Walker, 818 So. 2d 711, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing for failure to make findings required by section 61.08(2) ); Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 2......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...attorney's fee for this appeal, in view of the considerable disparity between the parties' financial status.5 1.See Walker v. Walker, 818 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (twelve-year marriage); Krafchuk v. Krafchuk, 804 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (twelve-year marriage); Nelson v. Nelson, 72......
-
Appellate court trends in permanent alimony for "Gray Area" divorces: 1997-2007.
...earning abilities of the parties may become the single most important factor when seeking a permanent alimony award. In Walker v. Walker, 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the Second District reversed and remanded to the trial court for further factual findings the denial of alimony in a 1......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...11 years 46 $2,160 765 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) Purvis v. Purvis 732 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) Walker v. 12 years None Walker 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) Cozier v. 15 years Cozier 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) Ingram v. 20 years 39 Ingram 750 So.2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000......
-
Appellate court trends in rehabilitative alimony: 10 years later.
...agreements between spouses when determining whether permanent or rehabilitative alimony is more appropriate. In both Walker v. Walker, 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and Cardillo v. Cardillo, 707 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the Second District found that when the parties agreed that ......