Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

516 So. 2d 113

Docket No. 87-199.

Fowler v. Fowler

Charles FOWLER, Appellant, v. Rose FOWLER, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 10, 1987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1987-12-10

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1988

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“there was no evidence that the former wife's earning ability suffered during the nine-month marriage or that she plans to obtain additional training or education,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 537 So. 2d 586 - Hurwit v. Hurwit

Relies on 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · 379 So. 2d 949 - Duncan v. Duncan · 505 So. 2d 10 - Long v. Long

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-12-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*114 Frank M. Townsend, of Townsend & Townsend, Kissimmee, for appellant.

¶2No appearance for appellee.

¶3COWART, Judge.

¶4The former husband, Charles Fowler, appeals a final judgment of dissolution which ordered him to pay the former wife rehabilitative alimony of $435 per month for the first six months, $335 per month for the next six months, and $285 per month for the following twelve months, with the provision that $285 per month of this amount is to be satisfied by the husband making payments on the parties' Barnett Bank loan, and for the first year, $50 per month is to be satisfied by the husband making payments on the parties' health club membership.

¶5We affirm the final judgment[1] except for the award of rehabilitative alimony, which we reverse. There was no evidence submitted that the former wife's earning ability suffered during the nine-month marriage or that she plans to obtain additional training or education. See Long v. Long,505 So.2d 10 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) and cases cited therein. However, as it is clear the trial court intended, as part of an equitable distribution, for the husband to pay the parties' joint obligations to Barnett Bank and the health club, this case is remanded for the trial court to amend the final judgment accordingly.

¶6AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.

¶7ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶8[1] Canakaris v. Canakaris,382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); Duncan v. Duncan,379 So.2d 949 (Fla. 1980).

/516/so2d/113 · .json · Public domain