ROBERT EDWARD COSGROVE, APPELLANT,
v.
MADELAINE MACKOUL COSGROVE, 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.
In this appeal of a dissolution of marriage judgment, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife in the amount of $1,500 per month, applying the stringent abuse-of-discretion standard established in Canakaris v. Canakaris and rejecting the husband's argument that the wife's current income precluded a finding of need.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent periodic alimony. The award was reasonable under the Canakaris standard considering the wife's monthly needs, the twenty-year duration of the marriage, and the standard of living established by the husband during the marriage.
[1] An appellate court will not find an abuse of discretion in a trial court's alimony award if reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken.
[2] Factors considered in determining need for permanent alimony include earning ability, age, health, education, duration of the marriage, marital standard of living, and th…
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 intelligence“If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.”
Establishes the stringent standard for reviewing alimony awards on appeal from Canakaris v. Canakaris
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for twenty years. The husband earned an annual salary of $59,100 at the time of the judgment. The wife's financial affidavit …
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 During Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, wherein the husband contends the trial court abused its discretion in awarding to the wife permanent periodic alimony in the amount of $1,500 per month. We disagree and affirm.
In the oft-cited case of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), the Florida Supreme Court set out the standard to be used by appellate courts in reviewing alimony awards as follows: “If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.” This stringent standard was recently confirmed in Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1985), and Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985).
It is clear, therefore, that before reversal can be required in this cause the husband must have demonstrated no reasonable person could have taken the view of the trial court that an award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife was proper. This the husband has utterly failed to do.
The various criteria used by trial courts to determine need for permanent alimony are 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’ estates. Canakaris at 1201. Considering the wife’s general monthly needs of $2,855 as set out in her financial affidavit, the twenty-year length of the parties’ marriage and the standard of living established by the husband, most recently at an annual salary of $59,100, we find the trial court’s granting of permanent alimony was reasonable under the Canakaris standard.
Moreover, the husband’s argument that the wife’s current income should have precluded a finding of need for permanent alimony is without merit. As the court in O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), 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 established during the course of the marriage. A divorced wife is entitled to live in a manner reasonably commensurate with the standard established by the husband during the course of a long-term marriage.
Accord, Wagers v. Wagers, 444 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…date of the statute.4 Since the trial judge considered appropriate criteria in making his award and the record supports his decision, it follows the trial court’s decision cannot be characterized as arbitrary or unreasonable. Cosgrove v. Cosgrove, 491 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). I submit we should affirm the case on the issue of the trial court’s award of permanent alimony. In my view, Bujarski v. Bujarski, 630 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), sheds no light on this case. The inequity in that case was t…
-
Lanier v. Lanier, 594 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…, the wife acknowledged that she will be able to support herself. However, no showing was made that she can ever support herself at a standard of living commensurate with that established during the marriage. This court held in Cosgrove v. Cosgrove, 491 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), that a former spouse with a job and an income might still demonstrate a need of permanent alimony if the post-marital standard is not commensurate with the former standard. See 491 So. 2d at 1220. Thus, although a wife is arguab…
-
Steinberg v. Steinberg, 614 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…therefrom, there was a need for an award of permanent alimony. Id. at 811. The court held that “although a wife is arguably self-supporting, she need not demonstrate a total dependency to justify an alimony award.” Id. Accord Cosgrove v. Cos-grove, 491 So. 2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (if the post-marital standard is not commensurate with the former standard, wife is entitled to permanent alimony despite the fact she has an income-producing job). Lastly, in Carr v. Carr, 522 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 198…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1985)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Wagers v. Wagers, 444 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)