From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strahan v. Strahan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 14, 1992
605 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-1416.

October 14, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Patricia W. Cocalis, J.

Victoria L. Semora, Hollywood, for appellant.

Perry W. Hodges, Jr., of Law Offices of Perry W. Hodges, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.


The former wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution contending that the trial court erred in failing to award the wife alimony in any form and in assessing the husband's ability to pay solely on his ability to pay on the date of the final hearing.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find no reversible error demonstrated with the possible exception of the court's failure to reserve jurisdiction to consider the wife's entitlement to alimony in the future.

The parties had both been employed by Eastern Airlines, but were laid off due to the eventual bankruptcy of the company. The husband earned over twice as much as the wife during said employment, but at the time of this proceeding neither was employed nor had had any success in finding other employment. Because of that fact, together with the lack of any substantial assets to warrant alimony, we cannot fault the trial court for refusing to make such an award. However, this was a long-term marriage and the husband appears to have a superior earning capacity. Therefore, we believe the wife may be entitled to an award of alimony in the future, should circumstances change and demonstrate the appropriate need and ability.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed from in all respects except as to the failure to specifically reserve jurisdiction to award any alimony in the future, if justified, and remand the cause with directions to amend the judgment to expressly so provide. In doing so, we acknowledge that the judgment contains a boiler-plate reservation of jurisdiction to do all things that the court deems just and equitable. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution we direct the court to reserve jurisdiction specifically for the purpose of awarding future alimony. See Mullins v. Mullins, 409 So.2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Strahan v. Strahan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 14, 1992
605 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Strahan v. Strahan

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA DEANNE STRAHAN, APPELLANT, v. GRANT DONALD STRAHAN, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 14, 1992

Citations

605 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Stock v. Stock

The question whether to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future lies within the court's…

Kennedy v. Kennedy

See Moore v. Moore, 401 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (proper for trial court to retain jurisdiction to award…