WILDA DYKES, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH A. DYKES, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the husband appeals a trial judge's award of $25,000 lump sum alimony to the wife, structured to be satisfied by returning her furniture. The appellate court reverses and remands because the award did not meet the statutory requirements for lump sum alimony under Florida law.
A lump sum alimony award cannot be satisfied by returning property that the parties agreed belonged to the wife. The trial court's alimony provision is reversed and remanded for reconsideration based on the proper statutory criteria: justification for lump sum payment and the payor's financial ability to make payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.
[1] Lump sum alimony requires justification for the payment and the financial ability of the paying spouse to make the payment without endangering their economic status.
[2] An award of lump sum alimony cannot be satisfied by the return of property that rightfully belongs to the recipient spouse.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 may be awarded as follows: [T]o ensure an equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage, provided the evidence reflects (1) a justification for such lump sum payment and (2) financial ability of the other spouse to make such payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.”
Establishes the two-prong test required for a valid lump sum alimony award under 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 intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded the wife lump sum alimony of $25,000, with the provision that this could be satisfied by the hus…
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 Financial Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which awarded her lump sum alimony of $25,000 but provided that this award could be satisfied by the husband’s returning the wife’s furniture to her which he had in his possession.
While at first blush it appears that the trial judge has made a rather obvious error, we have concluded that he was probably aware that it did not qualify as a lump sum award. We believe he labeled it as such as a device to persuade husband to return wife’s furniture to her expeditiously and without damage. While we acknowledge and admire his ingenuity, we cannot approve the procedure.
Lump sum alimony may be awarded as follows:
[T]o ensure an equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage, provided the evidence reflects (1) a justification for such lump sum payment and (2) financial ability of the other spouse to make such payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980). The requirement that the lump sum award be paid by returning property which the parties agreed belonged to the wife was not proper. Canakaris. See also Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980); Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). However, we cannot determine whether the trial court based its award of lump sum alimony in the amount of $25,000 because of the availability of the furniture to husband as an asset. We therefore must remand to the trial court to reconsider the alimony question based on the criteria enumerated in Cana-karis.
The alimony provision of the judgment is reversed and remanded for reconsideration by the trial court.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
- Vernell v. Edge, Inc., 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Budagail S. Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)