ANNE B. BLAKISTONE, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN R. BLAKISTONE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's lump sum alimony award was insufficient and should be supplemented with permanent periodic alimony to meet the appellant's needs.
[1] A trial court may award permanent periodic alimony when one spouse has a need for support and the other spouse has the ability to provide it, even if the needy spouse pos…
[2] The law does not require a spouse to deplete their assets to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage when determining alimony.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for 42 years, with the appellant serving as a homemaker and the appellee as the breadwinner. Despite both parties having sign…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard Of Living cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Anne Blakistone appeals from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. As her primary point on appeal, appellant contends the trial court’s $50,000 lump sum alimony award is insufficient to meet her needs and should be supplemented with permanent periodic alimony. We agree.
The parties were married for forty-two years with appellee serving as the breadwinner and appellant performing the traditional role of homemaker. The sixty-five-year-old appellant has a high school education but has not worked in forty-four years. Appellee, on the other hand, is a college graduate who has worked as a mortgage analyst and real estate appraiser. At the time of the final hearing, both parties each possessed well over $200,000 in assets. The parties’ financial affidavits, however, reveal a substantial disparity in incomes. While appellee generates income, including two government pensions, of approximately $81,000 a year, appellant derives only $15,000 a year from the investment of her cash and the dividends from her stock. Moreover, appellant’s investment income fails to cover her living expenses.
We think these circumstances demonstrate the need of appellant for and the ability of appellee to provide permanent periodic alimony. We realize, of course, that appellant has other assets of significant value, but the law does not require her to deplete those assets to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed while married. De Cenzo v. De Cenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Holley v. Holley, 380 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gordon v. Gordon, 204 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
Accordingly, we remand the cause to the trial court for an award of permanent periodic alimony in an amount the trial court determines necessary. Additionally, the trial court should reserve jurisdiction to allow either party to petition the court for modification of the award. The final judgment of dissolution is otherwise affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kelly v. Kelly, 925 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…, 695 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). And a spouse is not required to deplete her capital assets to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage. See Kaufman v. Kaufman, 541 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Blakistone v. Blakistone, 462 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); In re Marriage of Jones, 357 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See generally, Cullen; Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). As the third district noted in De Cenzo v. De Cenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), re…1 / 2
-
Kaufman v. Kaufman, 541 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…hereinabove and therefore she has not demonstrated a need for alimony at this time. (Emphasis added). The law is settled that a wife is not required to deplete her capital assets in order to maintain a standard of living. Blakistone v. Blakistone, 462 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); De Cenzo v. De Cenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Holley v. Holley, 380 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gordon v. Gordon, 204 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Accordingly, we remand the cause to the trial court with instru…
-
Leslie v. Grill, 123 So. 3d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…tances of this long-term marriage and under section 61.08, the Former Wife is not required to liquidate and deplete her assets to provide for her living expenses in lieu of the Former Husband’s anticipated contribution. See Blakistone v. Blakistone, 462 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for either the entry of a final judgment with sufficient findings or for further proceedings, if necessary. On remand, the trial court will necessarily have to address the respective incom…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DE Cenzo v. de Cenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- O'Dell v. Carlton B. O'Dell, 204 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Holley v. Holley, 380 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)