CINDI B. CLEMENS, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL P. CLEMENS, 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 of marriage case, the Florida appellate court affirmed the denial of rehabilitative alimony but reversed the trial court's denial of permanent alimony, finding the trial court abused its discretion by basing its need analysis on the wife's current reduced living circumstances rather than the marital standard of living.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying permanent alimony. In a long-term marriage (17+ years), there is a presumption favoring permanent alimony, and the husband failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption. The trial court erred by basing its need analysis on the wife's current reduced living arrangement rather than on the standard of living established during the marriage.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying permanent alimony when the evidence does not rebut the presumption favoring such alimony in a long-term marriage.
[2] Permanent alimony is intended to provide for a former spouse's needs and necessities as established during the marriage.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“permanent alimony is used 'to provide for the needs and necessities of life for a former spouse as they were established during the marriage of the parties'”
Establishes the legal standard that permanent alimony must be based on the marital standard of living, not post-separation circumstances
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 married in May 1993 and separated in February 2012, establishing a 19-year marriage with no children. At trial in September 2015, the wife…
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 Long-Term Marriage Presumption cases and more on FLexlaw
Cindi Clemens (“the Wife”) appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She contends that the trial court should have awarded her either permanent or rehabilitative alimony. We affirm, without discussion, the denial of her rehabilitative alimony request. However, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Wife’s request for permanent alimony.
The parties married in May 1993 and separated in February 2012. No children were born of the marriage. The petition for dissolution was filed in January 2014 and proceeded to trial in September 2015. At the outset of the trial, the parties resolved all equitable distribution issues. The Wife’s marital share of the Husband’s pension was $1,009.64 per month, while the Husband’s marital share was $2,833.00 per month. Although the record suggests that the parties have enjoyed a middle-class standard of living for much of the marriage, their marital estate was not substantial, in part, because the family business lost a substantial contract in 2014. The Wife held various jobs during the marriage prior to commencing work in the family business, without pay, in 2006.
At the time of trial, the Wife was fifty-two years old and unemployed. The Husband’s gross income was approximately $1,250.00 per month. The trial court found that both parties were “underemployed” and imputed minimum wage income to each of them. In denying the Wife’s request for permanent alimony, the trial court found that the Wife did not have a need for alimony based on the figures set forth in her most recent financial affidavit. This was error. The Wife’s *239financial affidavit was based on her current living, arrangements, where she was renting a single room in a friend’s residence. However, permanent alimony is used “to. provide for the needs and necessities of life .for a former spouse. as they were established during the marriage of the parties.” Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So.2d 1138, 1140 (Fla.2000)(emphasis added); see Price v. Price, 951 So.2d 55, 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
Because this was a long-term marriage,1 there existed an initial presumption in favor of permanent alimony. See Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So.2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The Husband did not present evidence sufficient to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to award permanent alimony. The trial court may take into account the circumstances at the time of remand in determining the appropriate am'ount of permanent alimony to be awarded to the Wife. Id. at 677.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.
PALMER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baron v. Baron, 300 So. 3d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2000)
- Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Price v. Price, 951 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)