BARBARA ANN BEVILLE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
HOWARD J. BEVILLE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 family law case, Barbara Beville appealed the trial court's award of only $200 per month in permanent periodic alimony. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding the award inadequate given her minimal income of $264 per month and her status as a wife of 35 years and mother of two children.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the $200 per month alimony award was inadequate absent explicit findings of gross marital misconduct. The trial court must either confirm gross marital misconduct by explicit finding or remit an appropriate higher award. Additionally, the wife's special equity in the $60,000 of joint cattle business funds must be calculated and awarded to the wife in a lump sum regardless of misconduct.
[1] A trial court must articulate findings of marital misconduct to limit or forestall an alimony award.
[2] A wife's special equity in marital assets must be determined and awarded, regardless of marital misconduct.
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“The trial court here awarded a mere $200.00 per month, in permanent periodic alimony, to a wife of many years and mother of two children, working as a part-time bus driver and earning only $264.00 a month.”
Establishes the facts and the adequacy problem that drives the reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara Beville and Howard Beville were married for 35 years and had two children. Barbara worked as a part-time bus driver earning $264 per month. Th…
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 Marital Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Chief Judge.
The trial court here awarded a mere $200.00 per month, in permanent periodic alimony, to a wife of many years and mother of two children, working as a part-time bus driver and earning only $264.00 a month. We reverse and remand.
It appears from the record that this much respected trial judge may have made this pathetically small award of periodic alimony because the wife was shown to be a lifelong nag and intolerable companion, during thirty-five years of marriage. If our supposition is correct, we can voice no objection, but we must ask the trial judge, upon remand, to make such a finding. Otherwise, reversible error was committed. Marital misconduct by a wife who seeks alimony may well limit or forestall any award, but such misconduct should be articulated, so that a reviewing court can discern what is afoot. Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1979). Absent marital misconduct, the award here would be ridiculous and even assuming misconduct, it is still erroneous in one respect. The trial court found that the wife had “some special equity” in $60,000.00 of joint funds invested in his cattle business. The amount of this equity should be determined upon remand and awarded to the wife in a lump sum, regardless of her misconduct, if any.
The husband avers that he gave his fruit hauling and harvesting business to his son, yet confesses no transfer of title has taken place nor does a bill of sale exist. All income and expense from the business continues to appear on the husband’s tax return and he continues to exercise control, write checks, and receive benefits therefrom. All this being so, he obviously remains the beneficial owner and is capable of making substantial alimony payments. Likewise, the wife’s need is obvious.
Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. If gross marital misconduct is confirmed by the trial judge, we have no objection to the meager award nor indeed to no award if such is deemed appropriate upon fresh consideration, especially since the prior periodic award was apparently predicated on the special equity in the cattle business which we have here treated separately.
As to the special equity in the cattle business, this must be calculated and appropriately distributed as we have already noted.
We find no merit to the other points on appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Margerie Green v. Green, 501 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…onsidered the appeal believed the final judgment should be reversed. Appellee sought rehearing en banc, contending affirmance was necessary to maintain uniformity in this court’s decisions. The bases for the alleged conflict were Beville v. Beville, 415 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Burrows v. Burrows, 384 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Since commencing consideration en banc we have had the benefit of the supreme court's opin [*1307] ion in Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.1986), which was not avail…
-
Robinson v. Robinson, 418 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…nation by the trial judge for the small amount of alimony awarded the wife in this case, it appears to us on its face to be clearly inadequate in view of the needs of the wife and the substantial assets and income of the husband. Beville v. Beville, 415 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reverse the awards of permanent periodic and lump sum alimony and remand for the trial judge to make a more equitable award. We affirm the remaining portions of the final judgment including that fixing child sup…
-
Drozak v. Drozak, 424 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…hat the trial court reconsider the wife’s alimony claims. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur. . Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). . Cf., Beville v. Beville, 415 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).…
Authorities Cited
- Williamson v. Veva C. Williamson, 367 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1979)