Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Steve RITTER, Appellant, v. Anna KIESZKOWSKI, Appellee.
On Motion for Clarification and Motion for Rehearing
On consideration of appellant's Motion for Clarification and Motion for Rehearing, the Court grants the motion for clarification, denies the motion for rehearing, withdraws the opinion issued on January 16, 2008, and substitutes the following in its stead.
The former husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage that awarded temporary rehabilitative alimony to the former wife. He argues, and we agree, that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding rehabilitative alimony where this was a marriage of short duration (14 months) that produced no children; the former wife had talent and training but chose not to pursue a job in her field; and there was no evidence in this record that the former wife's earning ability suffered during this marriage. See Sierra v. Sierra, 776 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Sutton v. Hart, 746 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Edgington v. Edgington, 588 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Edwards v. Edwards, 529 So.2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Poppe v. Poppe, 412 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We therefore reverse and vacate the award of rehabilitative alimony and the loan provision with directions that any amounts already paid to the former wife under these provisions be set off against the remainder of monies owed to the former wife, if any, pursuant to the property distribution portion of the final judgment. If no further monies are owed the wife, then the wife shall return said overpayments to the husband in a timely manner.
Reversed in part with directions and affirmed in part.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 3D07-2536.
Decided: May 14, 2008
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)