Court Denies Ex-Wife’s Attempt to Obtain Alimony 18 Years After the Divorce
The West Palm Beach Divorce Lawyers of Nugent & Zborowski recently reviewed a Florida appellate court decision that denied a former wife the ability to seek alimony 18 years after her divorce was finalized.
In Hill v. Hill, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D475f (Fla. 3D DCA Mar. 2, 2011), the question before the court was whether or not language in the final judgment that provided that the court “reserve[d] jurisdiction to determine alimony and to reassess the parties’ income in contemplation of [the husband's] retirement” allowed former wife to seek an initial award of permanent alimony 18 years after her divorce had been finalized.
Simply stated, the appellate court said “NO”. Unfortunately for the former wife, the original final judgment lacked any findings establishing that she was entitled to alimony.
Or, as stated by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal in legal jargon:
“Instead, in order to properly reserve jurisdiction for later alimony, a trial court must initially consider “all relevant economic factors” and must make a finding of need and entitlement to an alimony award. See § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat.; Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148; Purrinos, 34 So. 3d at 245. If it had found “that the [w]ife was entitled to be awarded permanent periodic alimony, [the trial court] was required to do just that — award her permanent periodic alimony, even if only a nominal amount,” e.g., $1. Schmidt, 997 So. 2d at 454. Appellate courts find it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to fail to award nominal alimony where there has been a determination of need. Gergen, 48 So. 3d 148; See id.; Schlagel, 973 So. 2d at 676-77; Nourse, 948 So. 2d at 904; Cunningham v. Cunningham, 930 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Misiak v. Misiak, 898 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Brewer v. Brewer, 898 So. 2d 986, 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Blanchard, 793 So. 2d at 990.
Similarly, where an award of permanent periodic alimony is found to be inappropriate but the trial court has made a determination of need, appellate courts will remand with instructions to award nominal periodic alimony to permit the parties to later apply for modification. For example, in Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So. 2d 232, 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the trial court made a determination of the wife’s entitlement to alimony and awarded her both permanent periodic and lump sum alimony; however, this Court found that the husband had no present ability to pay and reversed both awards and “remand[ed] for the trial court’s consideration of a nominal alimony amount to the former wife and/or reservation of jurisdiction to entertain a modification motion in the future . . . .” In contrast, in the case before us, because need was not previously established, the trial court could not reserve jurisdiction to return, eighteen years later, to make an initial determination of need.”
Click West Palm Beach Divorce Attorney Discusses Alimony Case to see a copy of the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Hill.
Call 561.844.1200 or click West Palm Beach Divorce Lawyers to speak with an attorney of Nugent & Zborowski about the alimony aspects of your divorce or modification case.
Filed Under Alimony, Appellate Opinions, West Palm Beach Divorce Lawyer