158 So. 3d 752
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Dianne and Douglas Purin were in a 30-year marriage; the circuit court entered a final judgment of dissolution.
- Trial court awarded durational alimony instead of permanent alimony.
- At trial, Dianne (appellant) established need and Douglas's ability to pay; Douglas (a commercial airline pilot) faces mandatory retirement at age 65, about ten years after the judgment.
- Trial court relied on Douglas's anticipated retirement to deny permanent alimony and also denied any statutory right to seek extension of durational alimony.
- Dianne appealed, arguing the court improperly based current alimony on a future retirement and misinterpreted section 61.08(7) regarding extensions of durational alimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly denied permanent alimony based solely on obligor's future mandatory retirement | Trial court erred; future retirement is speculative and cannot defeat current permanent-alimony award when need and ability to pay are shown | Retirement justifies limiting award to durational alimony because obligor will lose income | Reversed: court cannot deny permanent alimony solely because obligor will retire; retirement is not automatic termination and is a future event that cannot alone resolve current alimony |
| Whether obligor's retirement mandates termination or reduction of alimony | N/A (appellant argues against this) | Retirement should end or reduce obligation when obligor cannot pay | Court held retirement alone does not mandate termination; obligor must show inability to pay to relieve obligation |
| Whether court could combine nominal permanent alimony with durational alimony to protect future support | Dianne supported preserving right to future support; a nominal permanent award could minimize later litigation | N/A | Court indicated trial court could award nominal permanent periodic alimony alongside durational alimony to preserve support rights |
| Whether trial court correctly denied the statutory right to seek extension of durational alimony under §61.08(7) | Dianne argued she retains statutory right to seek extension upon exceptional circumstances | Trial court denied any right to seek extension | Reversed: trial court misinterpreted §61.08(7); party may seek extension upon showing exceptional circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2000) (courts generally may not base current alimony on speculative future events)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 651 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (future or anticipated events lack adequate evidentiary basis for setting current alimony)
- Arthur v. Arthur, 54 So. 3d 454 (Fla. 2010) (reiterating limits on considering future events in support determinations)
- Suarez v. Sanchez, 43 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (retirement does not automatically terminate alimony; obligor must show inability to pay)
- Nourse v. Nourse, 948 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (approving combined nominal permanent and durational alimony to reduce future litigation)