Womble v. Womble
| Decision Date | 28 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-767,87-767 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 306,521 So.2d 149 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 306 Brenda J. WOMBLE, Appellant, v. George A. WOMBLE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James L. Rose of Rice and Rose, and Berrien Becks, Jr. of Becks, Becks & Wickersham, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Garrett L. Briggs of Adams and Briggs, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
UPCHURCH, F.D., Jr., Judge, Retired.
Appellant Brenda Womble appeals a final judgment of dissolution, contending that the court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony instead of permanent alimony. We agree.
The principal purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self-support of the receiving spouse either through the redevelopment of previous skills or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Where appropriate, rehabilitative alimony may be converted to permanent periodic alimony.
Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties. The two primary elements to be considered when determining permanent periodic alimony are the needs of one spouse for the funds and the ability of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds. The criteria to be used in establishing this need include the parties' earning ability, age, health, education, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed during its course and the value of the parties' assets. Id.
In the present case, the parties were both in their forties and had a high school education. The husband, however, worked outside the home for Publix Supermarkets and now, after more than thirty years, earns over $50,000 per year and receives bonuses and additional benefits from Publix. In contrast, the wife had worked part time about twenty years ago at a credit bureau but after their first child was born in 1967, the wife worked as a homemaker. Since 1980 the wife has worked as a physical therapist earning $4.00 per hour. There was no evidence of any potential for advancement in this field or the likelihood of increased earnings. There was also no evidence of any plan for rehabilitation or course of study for the wife.
This court has observed:
A person is not self-supporting simply because he or she has a job and income. The standard of living must be compared with the standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy
...wife of 11-year marriage producing two children even though wife was "qualified and able to earn a living"); Womble v. Womble, 521 So.2d 149, 150 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 528 So.2d 1184 (Fla.1988) (error not to award permanent periodic alimony where wife's potential salary from full-tim......
-
Kunkle v. Kunkle
...maintenance appropriate where spouse is employed but has little prospect of earning an income to meet her needs); Womble v. Womble (Fla.App.1988), 521 So.2d 149 (permanent alimony award appropriate where wife had only high school education, worked as a full-time homemaker for twenty years, ......
-
Hallman v. Hallman
...in this district. See Bain v. Bain, 553 So.2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Poe v. Poe, 522 So.2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Womble v. Womble, 521 So.2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 528 So.2d 1184 (Fla.1988); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 512 So.2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So.2d 5......
-
Wright v. Wright
...from assets will, over the rehabilitative period, attain a total income level close to that enjoyed during the marriage. Womble v. Womble, 521 So.2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA) rev. denied, 528 So.2d 1184 (Fla.1988); O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). If that has not occurred, thr......