87-935 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Mar 31, 1988
David R. WISMAR, Appellant,
v.
Mary E. WISMAR, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
*553 Kenneth D. Morse of Matthias, DeLancett, Morse & Robb, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Michael Sigman, Orlando, for appellee.
COBB, Judge.
In 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.
The 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" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1983-06-02" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/campbell-v-campbell-1675934?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1675934">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" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1983-12-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/evans-v-evans-1888992?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1888992">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).
The 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.
Since 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" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1987-06-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bloodwell-v-bloodwell-1585404?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1585404">508 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We otherwise affirm the trial court's apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the parties.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
SHARP, C.J., dissents without opinion.
NOTES
[1] The wife admits that rehabilitative alimony would not be appropriate, since further training or education is not necessary or desired.