ROBERT N. WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCYS S. WHITE, 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 32-year marriage dissolution, the trial court awarded the wife the marital residence and 75 acres of jointly-owned North Carolina property as lump sum alimony, plus the husband's obligation to pay the remaining mortgage. The appellate court reversed this alimony award, holding that the wife's substantial separate estate and passive income demonstrated no financial need for alimony.
The court held that the award of property as lump sum alimony was improper because the wife failed to demonstrate financial need, as she possessed a substantial separate estate providing ample passive income. The trial court also made no finding of special equity in the property, and neither party properly requested partition. Therefore, the alimony award was reversed.
[1] A party seeking alimony, whether lump sum, permanent, or rehabilitative, must demonstrate a need for such support and the other party's ability to pay.
[2] A spouse with a separate estate providing ample passive income may fail to establish a need for alimony.
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“The law is now well established that a wife is not entitled to alimony, lump sum, permanent or rehabilitative, unless she can show a need therefor. It must also be shown that the husband has the ability to pay the alimony.”
Establishes the two-part test for awarding alimony: the wife must demonstrate financial need and the husband must have the ability to pay.
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 had been married for approximately 32 years and accumulated considerable property, both joint and separate. The wife possessed a separate …
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 Need For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
SEAY, RUSSELL E., Jr., Associate Judge.
After approximately 32 years of marriage, appellant-husband, petitioner below, filed a petition seeking a dissolution of the marriage. The parties had accumulated a considerable amount of properties, jointly and separately. The parties did not enter into a property settlement agreement and so the court undertook the task of determining the property rights of the parties. Neither party is happy with the rulings made by the trial judge in his final judgment. The husband has appealed and the wife has cross-appealed.
The final judgment, among other things, awarded the marital residence and 75 acres of North Carolina property to the wife. Both of these properties were jointly owned as an estate by the entireties. The husband was also ordered to pay off the amount remaining owed on the mortgage encumbering the marital residence. The judgment specified that the above mentioned award was made as lump sum alimony.
The record discloses that the wife possesses a separate estate considerably larger than that of the husband and she derives a passive income from her estate which will adequately care for her needs in the future, without requiring her to seek gainful employment. The record also indicates that the husband’s separate estate is smaller and his future income will be less than the wife’s.
The law is now well established that a wife is not entitled to alimony, lump sum, permanent or rehabilitative, unless she can show a need therefor. It must also be shown that the husband has the ability to pay the alimony. Calligarich v. Calligarich, Fla.App.1971, 256 So. 2d 60; Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 825; Beard v. Beard, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So. 2d 269; Roberts v. Roberts, Fla.App.1973, 283 So. 2d 396.
Because of the wife’s separate estate which provides her with ample income, she has failed to show a need for any kind of alimony. Also, there was no finding by the trial court that the wife had a special equity in the property, nor did either party properly request the court to partition the property.
The final judgment is modified by eliminating therefrom paragraph numbered “4” by which the appellee-wife was awarded certain real and personal property (including mortgage payments) as lump sum alimony.1 As thus modified, the final judgment is affirmed, the remaining points raised by the parties being without merit.
Affirmed, as herein modified.
OWEN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur. . Appellant abandoned his assignment of error directed to an award of $1,500.00 alimony payable $150.00 per week for ten weeks.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deas v. Deas, 592 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…vin, 553 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The award of rehabilitative alimony must also be reversed. A party is not entitled to rehabilitative alimony unless they establish a need for the alimony and the other party’s ability to pay. White v. White, 314 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). There must be evidence that the party has the ability through retraining or education to provide for a standard of living reasonably commensurate with the standard established during the marriage. Akers v. Akers, 582 So. 2d 1212…
-
Robinson v. Robinson, 366 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…le and just unless the husband is in the position to make payment of the sum so granted over and above the requirements attendant upon the maintenance of his business or employment, or the preservation of his professional activities. White v. White, 314 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). As in Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra, the record here reveals no special equity of the wife in the marital home. It appears, as in Cummings v. Cummings, supra, that since the parties are on the same relative footing insofar as t…
-
Nusbaum v. Nusbaum, 386 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…emand the trial court is directed to award the certificate of deposit to appellant. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, and remanded with directions. ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur. . Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949); White v. White, 314 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Simpson v. Simpson, 372 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). . Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976). . During the pendency of this appeal a suggestion of death was filed as to the appellant, Lawrence G. Nusbaum.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Emil Rossodivita v. The King's Surf Ltd., 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Armer E. White, 262 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Beard v. Beard, 262 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Howard Banks v. Simpson, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Roberts v. Nona Lee Roberts, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)