ROBERT H. VAWTER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIE A. VAWTER, 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 trial court awarded the husband's undivided half interest in the marital home (worth approximately $13,000) to the wife. The husband appealed, challenging whether this award was proper. The appellate court affirmed, finding the award was a valid exercise of discretion in awarding lump sum alimony based on the disparity in incomes and the wife's use of the marital home to generate her income.
The trial court properly awarded the husband's interest in the marital home to the wife as lump sum alimony. The award was a valid exercise of discretion because the husband's income was nearly double the wife's, the wife's inadequate income was derived through her use of the marital home, and no fixed minimum duration for a marriage is required before lump sum alimony can be awarded.
[1] A trial court may award lump sum alimony in a dissolution of marriage case even if the marriage was not of long duration, provided there is justification therefor.
[2] A trial court's discretion to award lump sum alimony is supported by evidence that one spouse's income is significantly higher than the other's.
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“Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980) recognizes the trial court's discretion to award lump sum alimony where there is justification therefor.”
Establishes that trial courts have broad discretion in awarding lump sum alimony and that no fixed minimum marriage duration is required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe marriage lasted five years with no children, though each party had children from prior marriages. Both parties contributed to the purchase of a ma…
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 Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The appellant husband seeks reversal of a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage case wherein the trial court awarded the husband’s undivided half interest in the marital home to the wife.
This marriage endured for five years and produced no children, though each of the parties had children by a previous marriage. During the marriage, a home was acquired with each party contributing to the purchase thereof either through the down payment or mortgage payments. In addition, the wife contributed heavily toward the day to day family expenses.
The husband’s monthly income was $2,623. The wife earned approximately $1,400 per month by renting two bedrooms in the marital home and by conducting music lessons therein. The evidence showed that the parties had an equity of approximately $26,000 in the marital home. The propriety of the trial court’s action in awarding the husband’s interest in the marital home to the wife is the focal point of this appeal.
Although the trial judge did not state the ground upon which the award of the home was based, we believe the record supports such an award as lump sum alimony. Clearly, this marriage was not of long duration. However, there is no fixed minimum period which a marriage must endure before lump sum alimony can be appropriately awarded. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980) recognizes the trial court’s discretion to award lump sum alimony where there is justification therefor. As we view this record, the fact that the husband’s income was nearly twice that of the wife and that her income, inadequate as it is, was produced through her use of the marital home was justification for the award. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that awarding the husband’s $13,-000 interest in the home to the wife constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
In passing, we note that a statement of the reasons or grounds for making awards in dissolution judgments is most helpful in appellate review. It immediately directs the appellate court’s attention to what the trial judge had in mind; perhaps more importantly, it obviates the necessity of the parties’ briefing and arguing various other possible reasons for the trial court’s action. Thus, we highly recommend that trial judges follow that format whenever possible in preparing final judgments in such cases.
AFFIRMED.
HURLEY, J., concurs.
BERANEK, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seilkop v. Seilkop, 575 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ial court’s award of $5,000 was not an abuse of discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). “[TJhere is no fixed minimum period which a marriage must endure before lump sum alimony can be appropriately awarded.” Vawter v. Vawter, 419 So. 2d 747, 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The award may have been precipitated by the fact that in the wake of the dissolution the wife was forced to leave her job and move closer to her parents in order to gain an adequate support structure to aid in raising her c…
-
Sanders v. Sanders, 435 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…e it is perhaps the only method the trial judge could devise which would allow both parties to have enough means to subsist after the dissolution. The wife’s meager income is essentially produced by her use of the marital property. Vawter v. Vawter, 419 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The husband does not have an income sufficiently large to permit him to pay periodic alimony without great hardship.1 Further, the pattern of physical abuse of the wife by the husband is another reason to sever any relationship…
-
Harris v. Romenita Harris, 498 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…insurance and pension benefits, etc., while the husband has no appreciable assets and earns a living from various jobs while pursuing his profession as a minister. This is not a case of disproportionate earning capacity or assets. Vawter v. Vawter, 419 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Villano v. Villano, 408 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); [*1047] Hurtado v. Hurtado, 407 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We return the matter to the trial court with directions to permit the wife to continue to occupy the home p…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)