LYLE LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
PATSY P. LEE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this Florida divorce case, the appellate court reversed a trial judge's award of lump sum alimony that gave the wife the husband's entire interest in jointly owned assets worth approximately $71,000. The court held that lump sum alimony requires not only demonstrated need and ability to pay, but also a particular circumstance or equity justifying such an award, which was absent here.
Lump sum alimony requires a demonstrated need, ability to pay, and a particular circumstance or equity justifying the award. The trial court's award was error because no such special circumstance or equity was shown. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine a fair award of periodic alimony instead.
[1] Lump sum alimony requires a demonstrated need, an ability to pay, and particular circumstances or equities justifying such an award.
[2] Absent particular circumstances or equities, alimony, if warranted, must be periodic, rehabilitative, or a combination thereof.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Lump sum alimony is to be awarded like any other kind of alimony: only when there is a demonstrated need and an ability to pay. However, there is yet another requirement to justify a lump sum award and that is there must be some particular circumstance or equity which makes a lump sum award appropriate.”
Establishes the three-part test for lump sum alimony awards in Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for over 21 years and had one adult child. During the marriage, the husband frequently worked two jobs. The parties accumulat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Equity In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
The parties of this cause were married in excess of 21 years. The have one child who has reached majority and is self supporting. During the marriage the husband frequently worked two jobs and, as a result, the parties accumulated a one-half interest in an apartment building, which one-half interest was worth approximately $48,000; stocks and bonds and promissory notes worth $20,000; furniture and other personal property worth $3,000; and an automobile. All of the foregoing property was jointly owned. During the marriage the wife worked in a business owned by a corporation whose stock was owned 50% by the husband, 48% by the wife, and 2% by another person.
The trial judge awarded the wife the husband’s entire interest in all of the assets, except the business, as lump sum alimony. We find that to be error on the facts of the case.
Lump sum alimony is to be awarded like any other kind of alimony: only when there is a demonstrated need and an ability to pay. However, there is yet another requirement to justify a lump sum award and that is there must be some particular circumstance or equity which makes a lump sum award appropriate.1 Absent a particular circumstance or equity, if alimony is warranted it must be either periodic or rehabilitative, or in an appropriate case it may be a combination of both types of alimony. As this court said in Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976):
“ . . . The Court specifically found that wife had no special equity in husband’s undivided one-half interest. Therefore before the wife can be awarded the husband’s interest as a form of lump sum alimony there must be a positive showing of necessity on the part of the wife as well as the pecuniary ability of the husband to support that necessity. Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1976); Gordon v. Gordon, 192 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).” 337 So. 2d at 1018.
The record in this case would support an award of periodic alimony. However, we find no circumstances or equities which justify stripping the husband of all his assets, except the ski school business. As this court said in McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), an award of alimony should not result in either spouse’s suffering a shocking change in financial condition. It seems to us that the award in this case has caused just such a change.
Accordingly, we reverse the lump sum alimony provision of the final judgment appealed from and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to determine a fair award of periodic alimony for the wife.
BERANEK, J, and BAKER, JOSEPH, Associate Judge, concur. . Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949); Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simpson v. Frieda L. Simpson, 372 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…th directions. LETTS, J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion. . Meredith v. Meredith, 366 So. 2d 425, Florida Supreme Court 1978; Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1976); Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1949); Lee v. Lee, 365 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).…
-
Holland v. Holland, 406 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…2 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Judge v. Judge, 370 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Reid v. Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Meredith v. Meredith, 352 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. granted 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1978). . Lee v. Lee, 365 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).…
-
Saldana v. Ada F. Saldana, 372 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…y also must be consistent with a finding of need on the part of one spouse and an ability of the other to comply with payment thereof, without suffering a devastating financial set-back. Reid v. Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Lee v. Lee, 365 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); see also McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The record below shows a couple with modest means who made the best of a military salary combined with that of a civil servant. They were able to accumulate…
Authorities Cited
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1976)
- McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 192 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)