Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

522 So. 2d 552

Docket No. 87-935.

Wismar v. Wismar

David R. WISMAR, Appellant, v. Mary E. WISMAR, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 31, 1988.

This page is marked noindex.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-03-31

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a]n award of permanent alimony is improper where the evidence does not reflect permanent inability on the part of the wife to become self-sustaining.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 845 So. 2d 927 - Rosecan v. Springer, 667 So. 2d 846 - Aresty v. Weinstein

Relies on 453 So. 2d 1355 - US Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Dept. of Ins. · 432 So. 2d 666 - Campbell v. Campbell · 443 So. 2d 233 - Evans v. Evans

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-03-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2013

14 state decisions

701988199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*553 Kenneth D. Morse of Matthias, DeLancett, Morse & Robb, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

¶2Michael Sigman, Orlando, for appellee.

¶3COBB, Judge.

¶4In this case the parties were married for eight years and had two minor children. The wife was awarded $58.00 per week as permanent, periodic alimony and $90.00 per week as child support for the children. The children reside with the husband six out of every fourteen days. The wife also received one-half of the present value of the husband's pension benefits and leasing partnerships, as well as one-half of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home.

¶5The appellant husband contends the award of permanent, periodic alimony in this case was an abuse of discretion.[1] An award of permanent alimony is improper where the evidence does not reflect a permanent inability on the part of the wife to become self-sustaining. Campbell v. Campbell,432 So.2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), petition for review dismissed,453 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 1984). In the instant case, the husband is employed as an accountant, earning a salary of approximately $30,000 per year. The wife, age 32, has a master of science degree in management, and works as the editor of the Rollins College Alumni Magazine, earning approximately $19,000 per year. The wife's education and earning ability show that she has the capacity for self-support, and the parties are in similar financial positions. See Evans v. Evans,443 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (award of permanent alimony to the wife, who was 35 years of age, in good health, and had present earning capacity between $12,500 and $18,000 per year was an abuse of discretion, even though the husband was earning at least $30,000 annually).

¶6The award of permanent alimony in this case, without any basis or justification in the record, except as a means to provide the wife with a higher standard of living at the husband's expense, constitutes an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the permanent alimony award.

¶7Since the wife had a substantially equal ability to pay attorney fees, we also reverse the trial court's award in that respect. See Bloodwell v. Bloodwell,508 So.2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We otherwise affirm the trial court's apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the parties.

¶8AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

¶9ORFINGER, J., concurs.

¶10SHARP, C.J., dissents without opinion.

NOTES

¶11[1] The wife admits that rehabilitative alimony would not be appropriate, since further training or education is not necessary or desired.

/522/so2d/552 · .json · Public domain