Wife Appeals Ruling to Deny Alimony in Florida Divorce Case

In the case of Wright v. Wright, the parties were married for 18 years. They had four children, three of whom were minors at the time of the final hearing. The former husband earned approximately $177,000 as a risk manager with a national bank. The former wife was a business analyst with a different bank and earned $109,000.

In the final judgment, the court denied the former wife’s request for permanent alimony. Florida no longer allows divorcees to pursue permanent alimony under the law. Today, a litigant in a divorce case must petition for durational alimony which lasts for a specific period of time. In this case, the court denied the wife’s petition for alimony on the basis that she could not establish a need.

In order to receive any form of alimony from the Florida courts during a divorce trial, the party who is petitioning for alimony must establish that they both have a need for the alimony and that the other party is capable of paying the alimony. In this case, the court observed that it need not address the statutory factors regarding the type and amount of alimony until there was proof that the wife had a need. On appeal, the former wife argued that the trial court erred in denying her permanent alimony when it failed to make factual findings required by Section 61.08, Florida Statutes.

Understanding the issues on appeal 

A final judgment awarding or denying alimony must contain specific findings of fact relative to the specific, non-exhaustive list of factors found in section 61.08(2). In other words, the court is expected to provide valid reasons for either permitting or denying alimony. In this case, the court found that the wife failed to establish a need so it didn’t have to go through the statutory factors related to section 61.08(2). These factors include any relevant economic factors such as the parties’ earning capacity, age, health, education, standard of living, and contributions to the marriage. A trial court’s failure to make specific findings of facts is considered a reversible error on appeal.

In this case, the parties had been married for 18 years. The wife was therefore subject to a presumptive for permanent, periodic alimony if a need was demonstrated. Today, those rules have changed.

The primary factor considered in this case was whether or not the former wife had a need for alimony and whether or not the husband had the ability to pay. A trial court must not leave a former wife substantially unable to meet her basic needs, so long as she can establish her former husband’s ability to pay.

In this case, the appeals court found that the trial court erred when it failed to consider factors under section 61.08(2). The issue was remanded to the circuit court to come up with evidence either supporting or denying the wife’s request for alimony.

Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce Attorney Today 

Westchase Law, P.A. represents the interests of individuals who are pursuing a divorce in Tampa, FL. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

casetext.com/case/wright-v-wright-271