SUSAN E. PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT P. PEREZ, 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 an automatic termination of rehabilitative alimony upon remarriage is improper and must be stricken from the judgment.
The wife appealed a final judgment of dissolution, specifically challenging the provision for automatic termination of her rehabilitative alimony upon…
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 Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
[*942] COBB, Judge.
The wife, Susan Perez, appeals a final judgment of dissolution and raises multiple points on appeal. We address her contention that it was error for the trial court to provide that the award to her of rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $1,100.00 per month for 48 months “shall terminate ... in the event of (her) remarriage.... ” She contends that this automatic termination of rehabilitative alimony in the event of remarriage is contrary to prior case precedent from this district. See Markham v. Markham, 485 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bentzoni v. Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).1
We agree that this provision m the final judgment relating to automatic termination of rehabilitative alimony must be stricken. When requested, such a determination should be made by the trial court at the time of remarriage based upon the particular circumstances of the parties rather than merely the legal relationship, as indicated in Bentzoni. Accordingly, we strike the provision relating to automatic termination of rehabilitative alimony upon remarriage. The judgment below is otherwise affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . For a contrary determination, see Blackmon v. Blackmon, 307 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Markham v. Markham, 485 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Blackmon v. Blackmon, 307 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Singleton v. W. Volusia Hosp. Auth., 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Bentzoni v. Prudence Martin Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)