RELENA D. ACKER, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID E. ACKER, 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 marital dissolution case, the Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's custody award to the husband but found the rehabilitative alimony awarded to the wife was insufficient and remanded for further proceedings to determine an adequate award.
The court affirmed the custody award but held that the rehabilitative alimony award was insufficient because the wife's monthly expenses would far exceed the $100 monthly award even with the tuition and books assistance, and remanded for the trial court to determine an adequate rehabilitative alimony award.
[1] A rehabilitative alimony award is within the discretion of the trial court.
[2] An award of rehabilitative alimony is insufficient when the record shows the recipient's monthly expenses will far exceed the award.
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“a rehabilitative alimony award is a matter within the sole discretion of the trial court”
Establishes the general principle that trial courts have discretion in rehabilitative alimony awards, citing Canakaris
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelena D. Acker, the wife, challenged a final judgment in her divorce from David E. Acker. The trial court awarded her rehabilitative alimony consisti…
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 Canakaris V. Canakaris cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant, Relena D. Acker, the wife herein, challenges the final judgment entered in this marital dissolution case. She contends the trial court erred in granting her an insufficient rehabilitative alimony award and in awarding primary residential care of her minor child to the appellee, David E. Acker, the husband herein. While we find there was no error as to the custody award and affirm on that point, we agree with the wife that the rehabilitative alimony award is insufficient and remand for further proceedings.
The husband here does not challenge the wife’s entitlement to rehabilitative alimony, but merely contends that pursuant to Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), a rehabilitative alimony award is a matter within the sole discretion of the trial court. He argues that since there was evidence to support the alimony award at issue, this court should find that the trial court committed no error with regard thereto.
The final judgment awards the wife rehabilitative alimony as follows: one-half tuition and books for up to ten hours per semester at Hillsborough Community College, and $150 per month for one year to assist the wdfe in obtaining dependable transportation. The final judgment also awards the wife the sum of $300 per month as additional rehabilitative alimony while she is in school, which sum is to be reduced by her $200-per-month child support obligation. Thus, in reality, the wife is to receive $100 per month in additional rehabilitative alimony while she is in school, but for no more than four years.
Since the instant record shows that the wife’s monthly expenses will far exceed $100 per month while she is in school' — even considering the fact that one-half of her tuition and books for ten semester hours will be paid for — we find the rehabilitative alimony award herein is insufficient. We, therefore, remand this cause for further proceedings to determine an adequate award.
Accordingly, the instant case is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.