ADELAIDE V. SLOMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCIS J. SLOMAN, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing marital assets or denying lump sum alimony, but erred in failing to award the wife attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court's division of marital assets will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion, particularly when reasonable minds could differ on the propriety of the act…
[2] A trial court is not required to equalize the financial positions of the parties in a dissolution of marriage judgment.
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 intelligenceThe wife appealed a dissolution of marriage judgment, challenging the division of marital assets and the denial of lump sum alimony. The wife received…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the wife from a dissolution of marriage judgment.
Responding to the wife’s points, we have reviewed the judgment as concerns the division of marital assets and the failure to award the wife lump sum alimony. (There was no complaint as to the non-award of periodic alimony).
With a 44 year marriage and the parties in their sixties, the wife received approximately 38% of the marital assets worth approximately $125,450.00.1
From the appellate stance we know that the trial court need not necessarily equalize the financial position of the parties. Moreover, if reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); McDonald v. McDonald, 368 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1979); Hartley v. Hartley, 399 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Gensemer v. Gensemer, 383 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Employing these criteria, we determine that there was no abuse of discretion or error as to the division of assets and denial of lump sum alimony.
Finally, the wife is aggrieved because the court did not order the husband to pay the wife’s legal expenses. We feel this point has merit. Because of the husband’s substantially superior financial position, he should be required to pay all of the wife’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Canakaris, supra; Kaylor v. Kaylor, 390 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Dominik v. Dominik, 390 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Patterson v. Patterson, 348 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . This calculation omits the wife’s assets acquired outside the marital relationship totalling approximately $21,500.00 plus her car, jewelry and social security income of $2,552.40 per year. It also omits the husband’s car, his annual pension income of $8,259.36, plus his tax free bond income of $9,600.00 per year.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
French v. French, 452 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…nd no error. Finally, we hold that the attorney’s fee and costs award was not an abuse of discretion given the disparate financial positions of the parties. See Kuvin, supra; DiPrima v. DiPrima, 435 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Sloman v. Sloman, 418 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. SMITH, CHARLES E., Associate Judge, concurs. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. . Appellate counsel for the father has indicated that at the time of oral ar…
-
Margulies v. Margulies, 645 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…be required to pay all of the wife’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. § 61.16, Fla.Stat. (1993); see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1205 (Fla.1980); Kuczwanski v. Kuczwanski, 602 So. 2d 623, 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Sloman v. Sloman, 418 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We do not, however, quarrel with the amount of the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs which the trial court determined to be reasonable. Accordingly, we reverse the trial [*55] court’s award of one-half of the fees and cos…
-
Bette Johns v. Johns, 423 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…that the wife had a bright income potential in times to come if she chose to pursue it, we still feel that the circumstances of this case reflect an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in not awarding her attorney fees and costs. Sloman v. Sloman, 418 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 380 So. 2d 497 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Droubie v. Droubie, 379 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.2d DCA 1980) and Canakeris v. Canakeris, supra. We remand with respectful instructions to award the wife reasonable attorney fees an…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 348 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Wilmer H. McDONALD v. McDONALD, 368 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1979)
- Dominik v. Rolla E, 390 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Hartley v. Hartley, 399 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Kaylor v. Kaylor, 390 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Gensemer v. Gensemer, 383 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)