Gergen v. Gergen
48 So. 3d 148
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- After an 18-year marriage with five children, Gergen filed for dissolution in Aug 2007; both spouses worked, husband earning more.
- Wife had prior substance abuse and mental health issues causing work absence; after Oct 2007 rehab she remained in treatment with expectation of return to Delta.
- Husband’s finances and health declined during the pendency; he was laid off in 2009 and later diagnosed with prostate cancer, with no interim employment by the final hearing in June 2009.
- Trial court issued a second amended final judgment: divorce granted, assets split equally, both parties retain own non-marital assets; shared parental responsibility with a set parenting plan.
- Alimony: rehabilitative alimony for four months post-judgment; no retroactive alimony; each party pays own fees; child support reserved due to lack of income.
- Permanent periodic alimony was neither granted nor denied; the court reserved jurisdiction to award it in the future if circumstances justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the reserved permanent periodic alimony was proper | Gergen argues for a final ruling on alimony rather than indefinite reservation | Gergen contends reservation was within the trial court’s discretion given uncertainties | Reservation reversed; remand to grant/deny with specific findings as of remand |
| Whether the reserved child support decision was proper | Gergen argues for a final determination on child support rather than deferral | Gergen asserts reservation permitted under circumstances | Reservation reversed; remand to grant/deny with specific income findings as of remand |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying retroactive alimony and attorney's fees | Gergen contends retroactive alimony and fees should be awarded | Gergen asserts trial court acted within discretion | No reversible error; discretionary rulings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Herman v. Herman, 889 So.2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reservation of jurisdiction reviewed for abuse of discretion; not automatic finality)
- Collinsworth v. Collinsworth, 624 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (trial court erred by reserving partition of marital home; finality concerns)
- Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (final custody decisions should be determined at final hearing; avoid deferral)
- Gruner v. Westmark, 617 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (deferral of child custody ruling was error when evidence supported final determination)
- Manucy v. Yurgalewicz, 906 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (nonfinal order where final property distribution was contemplated; potential serial appeals)
- Biskie v. Biskie, 37 So.3d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (nominal alimony as a mechanism to preserve jurisdiction; not strictly required)
- Hawkins v. Hawkins, 895 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (nominal alimony can preserve jurisdiction; not always necessary)
- O'Neal v. O'Neal, 407 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (support considerations and timing relevant to alimony reservations)
- Moore v. Moore, 401 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (advocates reservation of jurisdiction to avoid immediate need for support)