CAROLINE ROBINSON, PETITIONER,
v.
JACK ALLEN ROBINSON, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between lower court decisions regarding whether a wife could receive her husband's interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony. The Court held that lump sum alimony may be awarded to ensure equitable distribution of marital property so long as there is justification and the paying spouse can afford it without endangering their economic status.
Lump sum alimony may be awarded to ensure equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage within the trial court's discretion so long as there is some justification for the award and the paying spouse is financially able to make the payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.
[1] Lump sum alimony may be awarded to ensure equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage, provided there is justification for the award and the paying sp…
[2] The term "special equity" in the context of lump sum alimony awards pertains to the general equities of the case, not a specific requirement for a unique equitable claim.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 should be awarded only in those instances where some special equity is required”
The district court's interpretation of Yandell, which the Supreme Court clarified was overly restrictive
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaroline Robinson sought review after the District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award to her of her husband's interest in their marital …
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 Equitable Distribution Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review of the District Court of Appeal, First District, decision reversing the trial court’s award to petitioner of her husband’s interest in their marital home as lump sum alimony, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney’s fees. Robinson v. Robinson, 366 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Because the decision created conflict with Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949), we accepted jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. (1972).
Conflict is predicated on the district court’s holding that petitioner is not entitled to her husband’s interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony. Citing to Yandell v. Yandell, the district court stated, “lump sum alimony should be awarded only in those instances where some special equity is required.” 366 So. 2d at 1212. The court found that as in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 356 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), no special equity was shown.
However, the court’s decision in Canakaris was recently reversed by this Court in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). There we provided a detailed explanation of the Court’s use of the term “special equity” in Yandell and concluded that the term as used in that decision concerned only the general equities of the case. We held that awarding lump sum alimony to ensure equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage is within the trial court’s discretion so long as there is some justification for the award and the paying spouse is financially able to make the payment “without substantially endangering his or her economic status.” Id. at 1201.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, is quashed and this cause is remanded to that court with directions to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
[*1307] ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
We grant rehearing and clarify the opinion of November 20, 1980, as follows. The decision of the district court of appeal is quashed in its entirety, and the cause is remanded to that court to reconsider, in light of the decision of this Court in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), all of the issues it decided in hearing the appeal.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DE Cenzo v. de Cenzo, 433 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ases now allow the trial courts to divide equitably the property acquired during the course of the marriage so long as there is some justification for the award and the paying spouse is financially able to make the payment. See Robinson v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1306 (Fla.1980). The court in Tronconi went on to note: Further as Canakaris notes, an ‘equitable’ distribution does not require an ‘equal’ distribution. The two words are not synonymous. When an equitable distribution is invoked it may well take the pl…
-
Tronconi v. Tronconi, 425 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…assets of the parties accumulated during their marriage, as distinguished from her need for support ... if it is found necessary to compensate the wife for her contribution to the marriage” (emphasis supplied). Subsequently in Robinson v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1306 (Fla.1980), the court held that, “awarding lump sum alimony to ensure equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage is within the trial court’s discretion so long as there is some justification for the award and the paying spouse i…1 / 2
-
Carroll v. Carroll, 471 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…d of lump sum alimony is appropriate in this case. Although a justification for the lump sum alimony award is not set out in the trial court’s order, it is reflected in the record and the husband is financially able to pay. See Robinson v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1306 (Fla.1981) (on rehearing) (where there is some justification for award and paying spouse can pay without endangering his or her economic status lump sum alimony award to insure equitable distribution of marital assets is within trial court’s discret…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 366 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 356 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)