Case ID: so2d_755/html/0181-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. SORONDO, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mechele REY, Appellant, v. Esteban REY, Appellee.
    No. 3D99-1029.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 12, 2000.
    Martyn W.D. Yerster, Miami, for appellant.
    R. Keith Allen, for appellee.
    Before GERSTEN, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage finding that the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award the wife alimony. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). However, we remand the cause for the trial court to amend the judgment. Here, although the husband’s income is significantly greater than the wife’s income, and she has demonstrated a need for alimony, the husband’s ability to pay alimony is limited due to his child-support obligation. Under these circumstances, the reduction of that obligation upon each child’s emancipation may provide a change in circumstances enabling the husband to provide for his wife’s support. See Stock v. Stock, 693 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Therefore, the court should have reserved jurisdiction to consider an alimony award in the future. On remand, the court must amend the judgment to reflect a reservation of jurisdiction to “modify its alimony ruling if in the future the wife demonstrates a need and the husband has the ability to pay alimony.” Eckroade v. Eckroade, 570 So.2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976)(trial court has discretion to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future).

Affirmed; cause remanded with directions.

GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ., concur.

SORONDO, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part)

I agree that the Final Judgment in this case should be affirmed.' I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion which modifies the Final Judgment by ordering a reservation of jurisdiction to modify its alimony ruling in the future. I do not believe that this is an appropriate case for such a measure.

The parties herein earn almost identical net incomes, the former husband earning approximately $766.00 more than his former wife. The former husband’s child support obligation is $776.00, thus making the net incomes of each side virtually identical. The former husband’s child support obligations for the parties’ three minor children will end in 2002, 2004 and 2008 respectively.

The General Master recommended that the trial judge reserve jurisdiction on this issue. The judge declined that invitation without objection from either side. Neither party asked the judge to re-consider his decision nor has either party appealed the judge’s failure to reserve jurisdiction or sought any relief from that decision. Under these circumstances I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the lower court abused its discretion by not reserving jurisdiction on the alimony issue.