LOIS R. RAY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT L. RAY, 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 matrimonial dissolution case, the wife appealed the trial court's award of only $15,000 in special equity and a two-year rehabilitative alimony award. The appellate court reversed the special equity determination, finding the trial court erred in awarding the husband a $10,000 special equity from the restaurant partnership while ignoring the wife's equal contribution of time, services, and capital, and remanded for the wife to receive the full $25,000 special equity to which she was entitled.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in awarding the husband a $10,000 special equity from the restaurant while ignoring the wife's equal partnership contribution of time and services. The wife is entitled to a total special equity of $25,000 rather than the $15,000 awarded. The trial court's discretionary award of rehabilitative alimony was not disturbed.
[1] A trial court may award rehabilitative alimony in its discretion.
[2] A party may be entitled to a special equity in marital assets based on contributions made prior to or during the marriage.
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“The husband and wife were equal partners in the restaurant. The husband contributed cash and the wife contributed her time and services and a lesser amount of cash. The proceeds were split equally and reinvested in joint property and we find it was error to give the husband a $10,000 special equity and ignore the wife's corresponding special equity.”
Establishes the core legal error regarding the characterization of the restaurant as an equal partnership and the failure to credit the wife's contributions equally.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBefore marriage, the wife worked as the husband's executive secretary at TV stations for nine years. The couple purchased a restaurant before marriage…
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 Petition For Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
The wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Before their marriage, the wife worked as the husband’s executive secretary at two TV stations for nine years. Subsequently, the husband started an advertising business, and the wife came to work for him performing typing, shorthand, bookkeeping, and receptionist duties. When the parties married, the wife ceased drawing a salary. All profits from the enterprise went to the parties’ joint savings account and were used to buy investment properties. Also prior to marriage, the parties purchased a restaurant. The husband contributed $10,000 and the wife invested $5,000 in cash, with an agreement to satisfy the remainder in time and services at the restaurant. All evidence indicates that this was an equal partnership and, when the restaurant was sold after the marriage, the proceeds were split equally and reinvested. For the first four months of marriage, the couple resided in a house held by the wife. The house was later sold for $30,000, which was placed in their joint bank account and later invested in property. After nine years of marriage, the husband filed a petition for dissolution against the wife. The wife filed an answer and counter-petition claiming special equity in the husband’s one-half interest in certain jointly held property and in her husband’s advertising business. The final judgment awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony and a $15,000 special equity in the joint assets. The wife’s claim for special equity in her husband’s business was denied.
On appeal the wife asserts that she was entitled to a special equity or lump sum alimony interest in the husband’s business and that her two-year alimony award was insufficient. We find these issues to have been within the discretion of the court and decline to interfere. Canakaris v. Canamaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
The wife also contends that the court erred in granting her only a $15,000 special equity. The parties stipulated that as to all joint assets the wife had a special equity of $30,000 by virtue of the sale of her house, and the husband had a special equity of $5,000 from an inheritance. This left the wife with a special equity of $25,-000. The court then reduced this to $15,000 by viewing the husband’s $10,000 contribution toward the restaurant as a special equity. We regard the award of this $10,000 special equity as error. As stated above, the husband and wife were equal partners in the restaurant. The husband contributed cash and the wife contributed her time and services and a lesser amount of cash. The proceeds were split equally and reinvested in joint property and we find it was error to give the husband a $10,000 special equity and ignore the wife’s corresponding special equity. The wife is entitled to a total special equity of $25,000. The matter is remanded for entry of a judgment awarding the additional special equity.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.