MARA ROVENGER, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT E. ROVENGER, 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 rehabilitative alimony award was grossly inadequate in amount and duration.
The wife, with limited earning capacity, was awarded custody of the child and marital assets. She estimated monthly expenses of $4,508, but received $…
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 Matrimonial Domicile cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this appeal from a final judgment dissolving a five-year marriage, the wife claims that she was short-changed in several respects.
We consider the facts pertinent to the claimed inadequacy of the alimony award. Appellee-husband is a thirty-year-old attorney whose one-third interest in a law firm is valued at $300,000. Appellant-wife holds a Bachelor of Arts degree but has not earned more than $275 per week during the course of the marriage. Appellant was awarded, pursuant to the judgment of dissolution, exclusive use of the condominium marital-domicile which has a $55,000 mortgage, an Audi automobile which has a $10,-000 remaining payoff balance, the household furnishings, and primary custody of the one-year-old child of the marriage. She was also given responsibility for one-half of the mortgage and automobile payments. At the time of the dissolution, appellant was not working and testified that she had no plans to resume work after the child was born.
Appellant estimated her monthly expenses, inclusive of the mortgage payments, car payments, food, clothing, and baby-sitter, at $4,508 per month. The court awarded her $600 per month for child support — which is to increase by $175 per month when the child enters preschool— and $1,200 per month for two years as rehabilitative alimony.
It appears from the uncontroverted evidence as to the husband’s extravagant lifestyle that his actual income, no matter what the source, is far greater than his $900 per week ledger sheet income. See Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Further, no reasonable person could disagree that the wife’s award of $1,200 per month in rehabilitative alimony for two years is grossly inadequate.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reconsider the evidence and to accordingly increase the amount and the duration of the alimony award.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…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 1996). . See Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Rovenger v. Rovenger, 474 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). . See Makowski v. Makowski, 613 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). . See Short v. Short, 747 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Florida Dissolution of Maniage, § 13.24 (6th ed.2002). . See Levy v. Levy, 862 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 200…
-
Villaverde v. Villaverde, 547 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…he testified at trial that he was earning $25,000 per month. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person could find that the rehabilitative alimony award was adequate.3 Vandergriff v. Vandergriff 456 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1984); Rovenger v. Rovenger, 474 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Third, we hold that the trial court committed error in calculating the alimony and child support awards. The court should not have considered the husband’s potential liability to Medicare.4 The court should not base alimony or c…
-
Steinberg v. Steinberg, 614 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…uate amount); Canakaris; Villaverde, 547 So. 2d at 187 n. 3 (if wife cannot meet her reasonable living expenses during her rehabilitative period, then no reasonable person could find that the rehabilitative award was adequate); Rovenger v. Rovenger, 474 So. 2d 286, 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same). The value of the podiatry practice. This issue is raised by the husband’s cross appeal. He asserts the trial court erred in placing a value of $30,000 on the practice. The wife counters that the practice was consider…
Authorities Cited
- Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)