Case Name: Barbara D. CLANCE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Wayne D. CLANCE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-02-14
Citations: 576 So. 2d 746
Docket Number: No. 89-1425
Parties: Barbara D. CLANCE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Wayne D. CLANCE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: WOLF, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 576
Pages: 746–748

Head Matter:
Barbara D. CLANCE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Wayne D. CLANCE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 89-1425.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 14, 1991.
Rehearing Denied April 18, 1991.
Barbara Ann Butler, Jacksonville, for appellant/ cross-appellee.
Charles B. Lembcke of Datz, Jacobson & Lembcke, Jacksonville, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Opinion:
JOANOS, Judge.
Barbara D. Clance has appealed, and Wayne D. Clance has cross-appealed, a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm without discussion as to all issues raised, except with regard to the award of rehabilitative alimony. As to that portion of the final judgment, we reverse and remand to the trial court for issuance of an amended final judgment.
The record herein shows that appellant Barbara D. Clance, is a 46-year old high school graduate with some rudimentary clerical skills. In the course of the 24-year marriage, she worked briefly as a file clerk while the husband was in law school, as a clerk at the family's failed video business in the late 1970s, and for several years in the 1980s as a part-time clerical worker in husband's law office. The former husband is an attorney in private practice, whom the trial court found to earn approximately $13,000 monthly; this finding is not challenged on appeal. The court, as part of its equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets, awarded the wife $1200 per month in permanent periodic alimony, and $1000 per month for two years as rehabilitative alimony.
The purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to enable a spouse to become self-supporting through redevelopment of skills, or training to develop skills. Mundy v. Mundy, 498 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We find that, given the facts outlined above, and the seeming absence of evidence as to any plan for Mrs. Clance to re-develop job skills or acquire new ones, the final judgment does not contain sufficient findings of fact for this court to understand the reason for the $1000 per month to have been awarded as rehabilitative alimony. We therefore reverse the final judgment and remand to the trial court for issuance of an amended final judgment containing adequate findings of fact to support the award of rehabilitative alimony, or a ruling otherwise as to the awards of rehabilitative alimony and/or permanent periodic alimony. See Kim v. Bradshaw, 569 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
WOLF, J., concurs.
BARFIELD, J., concurs and dissents with opinion.