In Florida family law, few cases have shaped modern divorce outcomes as profoundly as Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). Decided by the Florida Supreme Court more than four decades ago, Canakaris remains the seminal authority on alimony, equitable distribution principles (before the statute formally adopted that term), and—most importantly—the scope and limits of trial court discretion in dissolution proceedings.
For clients navigating divorce—particularly long-term marriages involving substantial assets—Canakaris explains why outcomes are rarely mechanical, why appellate courts are reluctant to second-guess trial judges, and why thoughtful, evidence-driven advocacy at the trial level matters so much.
The Case in Context
Canakaris arose from the dissolution of a thirty-three-year marriage. The husband, a physician and hospital operator, amassed significant wealth during the marriage, with a net worth exceeding $3.7 million. The wife, who married young, supported the husband through his education, worked in his early professional ventures, and devoted her adult life primarily to the marriage and home. Her independent income was negligible.
The trial court awarded the wife:
- Lump sum alimony, including the husband’s one-half interest in the marital home;
- Permanent periodic alimony of $500 per week; and
- Attorney’s fees to be paid by the husband.
The First District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the wife lacked a “special equity” in the marital home, that her needs had not been sufficiently proven to justify periodic alimony, and that she could pay her own attorney’s fees.
The Florida Supreme Court disagreed—forcefully.
Dispelling the “Special Equity” Confusion
One of Canakaris’s most enduring contributions is its clarification of the often-misused concept of “special equity.”
Before Canakaris, Florida courts frequently conflated two very different ideas under that label:
- A vested property interest arising from extraordinary contributions of funds or services beyond normal marital duties; and
- A justification for lump sum alimony based on overall fairness.
The Supreme Court drew a bright line between the two. A vested “special equity” is about ownership—it determines whether one spouse has a property interest independent of alimony. Lump sum alimony, by contrast, is not dependent on any prior ownership interest. It is a remedial tool, authorized by section 61.08, Florida Statutes, to achieve equity and justice between the parties.
By untangling these concepts, Canakaris freed trial courts from rigid formulas and reaffirmed that lump sum alimony may be used to equitably distribute wealth accumulated during the marriage, so long as:
- The award is justified by the equities of the case; and
- The paying spouse has the financial ability to make the award without undue economic harm.
Defining the Purpose of Different Forms of Alimony
Canakaris also remains foundational for its clear articulation of the purposes served by different types of alimony.
- Lump Sum Alimony may consist of cash or property and becomes a vested right upon entry of judgment. It is generally non-modifiable and does not terminate upon death or remarriage unless expressly provided otherwise.
- Permanent Periodic Alimony exists to provide for the needs and necessities of life as established during the marriage. The core inquiry is need and ability to pay, informed by factors such as duration of the marriage, standard of living, age, health, earning capacity, and overall financial circumstances.
- Rehabilitative Alimony, while not directly at issue in Canakaris, was defined as support intended to restore a spouse’s capacity for self-support through education or training.
Critically, the Court emphasized that these remedies are interrelated. They are not to be evaluated in isolation but as parts of an integrated scheme designed to reach a fair overall result.
Judicial Discretion—and Its Limits
Perhaps the most quoted portion of Canakaris concerns appellate review. The Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between:
- Legal error, which occurs when a trial court applies the wrong rule of law; and
- Abuse of discretion, which exists only when a ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable—such that no reasonable judge could have reached the same conclusion.
If reasonable minds could differ, appellate courts must affirm.
This principle explains why family law appeals are notoriously difficult. Trial judges see the witnesses, hear the testimony, and evaluate credibility firsthand. Appellate courts, reviewing cold records, are instructed to defer unless the result lacks logic or justification.
At the same time, Canakaris cautioned that discretion is not whim. Similar cases should yield similar outcomes, and discretion must be “disciplined by system” and guided by established principles—not personal sentiment.
Why Canakaris Still Matters Today
Although Florida has since adopted a formal equitable distribution statute and refined alimony law through legislative amendments, Canakaris remains the bedrock case cited whenever discretion, alimony structure, or appellate review is at issue.
For clients, its practical lessons are enduring:
- Divorce outcomes are not dictated by formulas alone.
- Homemaking and non-economic contributions are legally significant.
- Trial-level presentation is paramount; appeals are not a second bite at the apple.
- A fair result does not require equal division, but it does require that no spouse be “shortchanged.”
For lawyers, Canakaris underscores the importance of building a comprehensive evidentiary record and presenting the case as a cohesive equity narrative, not a checklist of factors.
The Bottom Line
Canakaris v. Canakaris is not merely a historical artifact. It is the lens through which Florida courts still view fairness, discretion, and equity in dissolution cases. Understanding it is essential for anyone facing a complex divorce involving long marriages, substantial assets, or significant disparities in earning power.
When a case turns on judgment rather than arithmetic, Canakaris explains both the power—and the responsibility—of the trial court to do justice between the parties.
Donner Law Firm 