Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

345 So. 2d 756

Docket No. 76-605.

West v. West

Mildred C. WEST, Appellant, v. Howard WEST, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 1, 1977.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1977-04-01

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1980

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Our reading of the record in this cause leads us to conclude that the trial court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony to the 57 year old wife who had not worked during the 35 year marriage between the parties. There is no evidence in the record which demonstrates the potential or actual capacity for self support by the wife. On authority of Reback v. Reback, 296 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and Yohem v. Yohem, 324 So.2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), we reverse the final judgment insofar as the award of rehabilitative alimony is concerned and remand the cause with directions that the trial court enter an award for permanent alimony in such amount as the court shall determine to be appropriate based upon the current needs of the wife and the husband's ability to pay.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 359 So. 2d 494 - McCloskey v. McCloskey

Relies on 296 So. 2d 541 - Reback v. Reback · 324 So. 2d 160 - Yohem v. Yohem

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-04-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John T. Christiansen of Sales & Christiansen, Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2William J. Swink of Swink, Swink & Swink, Miami, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Our reading of the record in this cause leads us to conclude that the trial court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony to the 57 year old wife who had not worked during the 35 year marriage between the parties. There is no evidence in the record which demonstrates the potential or actual capacity for self support by the wife. On *757 authority of Reback v. Reback,296 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and Yohem v. Yohem,324 So.2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), we reverse the final judgment insofar as the award of rehabilitative alimony is concerned and remand the cause with directions that the trial court enter an award for permanent alimony in such amount as the court shall determine to be appropriate based upon the current needs of the wife and the husband's ability to pay.

¶5The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

¶6AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and remanded with directions.

¶7DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., and FOGLE, HARRY W., Associate Judge, concur.

/345/so2d/756 · .json · Public domain