DENIS C. HORGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIELLEN HORGAN, 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 a dissolution proceeding, the appellate court reversed the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony to the wife because she was gainfully employed and failed to present a rehabilitation plan, but affirmed other aspects of the judgment.
Rehabilitative alimony is not warranted when the former spouse is gainfully employed and fails to present a plan for rehabilitation outlining career goals and necessary accomplishments.
[1] Rehabilitative alimony requires the recipient spouse to present a detailed plan for rehabilitation outlining specific career goals and the means necessary to accomplish t…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“rehabilitative alimony was not warranted, as she failed to present to the trial court a plan for rehabilitation outlining her career goals and that which would be needed to accomplish them”
Court explaining why rehabilitative alimony award was improper despite trial court's award
In a dissolution proceeding between a former USAir commercial pilot and his wife, the trial court awarded the wife $500 per month in rehabilitative al…
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 Spousal Support cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Chief Judge.
In this dissolution proceeding, the husband has raised several issues, only one of which has merit.
The husband, a former commercial pilot of USAir, asserts that the trial court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony to the wife of $500 a month for four years. We agree. The wife is now gainfully employed as a flight attendant for USAir. She appears to be earning a respectable income, and any need that might have existed for rehabilitative alimony no longer exists. In any event, rehabilitative alimony was not warranted, as she failed to present to the trial court a plan for rehabilitation outlining her career goals and that which would be needed to accomplish them. Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA1993). In light of our holding that the former wife failed to show a need for rehabilitative alimony, the trial court’s alleged error in imputing to the husband $50,000 annual income is of no consequence.
Finally, none of the husband’s other contentions has merit. We affirm the trial court’s calculation of the non-marital portion of his pension plan because he has presented an entirely different argument on appeal from that advanced at trial. The court’s equitable distribution of marital assets, as well as the award of lump sum alimony to the wife, are within the exercise of the court’s discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to strike the rehabilitative alimony award.
SCHOONOVER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roselyne H. Register v. Register, 690 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…rror to award it. See Robinson v. Robinson, 655 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). It is well established that a party seeking rehabilitative alimony must prove the necessity for such an award and present a plan for rehabilitation. See Horgan v. Horgan, 622 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Adams v. Adams, 604 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. den., 614 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1993); Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Appellant di…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Mahaffey v. Cyndi Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)