Case Name: Wallyce V. VANDERGRIFF, Appellant, v. Jack C. VANDERGRIFF, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-09-19
Citations: 438 So. 2d 452
Docket Number: No. AQ-277
Parties: Wallyce V. VANDERGRIFF, Appellant, v. Jack C. VANDERGRIFF, Appellee.
Judges: ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., J., concurs and dissents, with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 438
Pages: 452–456

Head Matter:
Wallyce V. VANDERGRIFF, Appellant, v. Jack C. VANDERGRIFF, Appellee.
No. AQ-277.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sept. 19, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1983.
John L. Myriek of Kinsey, Myrick & Troxel, P.A., Pensacola, for appellant.
David H. Levin and Richard E. Scherling, Pensacola, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHIVERS, Judge.
The issue in this dissolution action is whether the final judgment has made adequate and reasonable financial and property arrangements for the wife.
The specific questions on appeal relate to permanent alimony as opposed to rehabilitative alimony, and the sufficiency of it, the length of time for the wife's use of the marital home, the personal property award to the wife, provisions for the wife's health insurance, and the failure of the trial court to dispose of the parties' savings plan account. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm the provisions as to the wife's use of the marital home and the personal property award to the wife. We reverse and remand the alimony award, the provisions for the wife's health insurance, and the failure to divide and dispose of the parties' Telco savings plan account.
The parties were married over 32 years. Although the wife received a degree in elementary education, her teaching certificate long ago lapsed. The wife has stayed home to raise the parties' three daughters and has not been gainfully employed for 26 years. Her activities outside the home have included teaching at church school, helping with Southern Bell functions, and family/community service as a leader in Brownie and Girl Scouts, a room mother, a teacher's helper, an unpaid volunteer teacher and lunchroom helper.
The husband has been employed 34 years with Southern Bell, is now an associate manager earning an annual gross salary of $36,000 — $37,000 ($3,133.34 per month). The marital home is unencumbered. The husband owes $6,500 to his credit union.
The final judgment dissolving the marriage awards custody of the 15-year-old minor child to the wife, requires the husband to pay the wife $180 monthly for the child's support and to pay the child's Catholic high school tuition. The judgment orders the husband to pay the wife $300 per month rehabilitative alimony for a period of three years, reserving the right to revise or extend the rehabilitative alimony.
Exclusive use of the marital home and personal property therein is awarded the wife until the child attains her majority or until the wife dies or remarries. The husband is required to pay taxes on the marital home and a lot owned by the parties, to make certain home repairs, but to receive credit for all these payments upon sale or disposition of these properties. (Although the record is not entirely clear, it is assumed the marital home is titled in both names.)
The wife makes a forceful argument for her continued use of the marital home and property therein following the child's reaching 18, but we affirm the trial court's discretion that the parties' ownership of the marital home and personal property therein as tenants in common shall cease being subject to the wife's exclusive use upon the child's majority or the wife's remarriage. We do this, confident that upon remand adequate support provisions will be made for the wife. We note, parenthetically, that husband is to receive credit for taxes and repairs paid by him. We assume this means that, upon sale or disposition, he will receive credit against the wife's share for half the taxes and repairs paid by him.
We turn now to the wife's point that she should have been awarded permanent alimony. She should have been. A husband who has been married over three decades to a wife whom he has supported, who has raised his three children, and who has no present ability to support herself, but whom he can support, should provide her permanent alimony. See Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Permanent alimony is used to provide the needs and necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980) at 1201. The standard of need for the award of alimony after a marriage of some duration is the standard of living enjoyed during its course. The trial court abused its discretion in awarding rehabilitative instead of permanent alimony and in making an inadequate award of only $300 per month. See De Cenzo v. De Cenzo, 433 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We reverse the rehabilitative alimony award with directions to award an adequate and increased amount of permanent periodic alimony sufficient for the wife's support and in accordance with the husband's ability to pay.
A part of the wife's needs is health care. Although the wife suffers from high blood pressure, allergies, and a back condition, the final judgment makes no provision for the wife's health care. The record indi-' cates that upon dissolution the wife will no longer be a beneficiary on the husband's health, hospital and dental insurance policies. Upon remand this portion of the wife's needs should be specifically addressed and met.
Upon remand the trial court should also address the status and/or disposition of the Telco savings account.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., J., concurs and dissents, with opinion.
NIMMONS, J., specially concurs.