EVA H. MARTYN, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES P. MARTYN, 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 this dissolution of marriage case, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's complete denial of alimony, attorney's fees, and suit money to the wife, finding such denial was an abuse of discretion given the substantial disparity in the parties' assets, the length of the marriage, and the husband's ability to pay.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying the wife any alimony, attorney's fees, and suit money given the substantial disparity in the parties' assets, the length of the marriage, the wife's lack of employment, and the husband's proven ability to support her during separation. On remand, the trial court must award lump sum alimony, reasonable attorney's fees, and suit money.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a spouse alimony, attorney's fees, and suit money when the facts of the case warrant such an award.
[2] In domestic relations cases, a trial court should consider the duration of the marriage, the parties' respective ages and health, and their financial circumstances when d…
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 wife was unemployed during the marriage and throughout the twelve year separation the husband supported her in a comfortable style, the last year being to the tune of $22,000.”
Establishes the husband's proven ability and history of supporting the wife and the wife's lack of independent earning capacity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for seventeen years but lived together only five years, remaining separated for twelve years. The wife was 27 and the husband…
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 Suit Money cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The wife in this domestic relations case contends that she was short-changed by the judgment of dissolution entered by the trial court. That pithy characterization, borrowed from Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), is not totally off the mark in our view.
The parties were married for seventeen years; they lived together for only five years and have been separated the remaining twelve. The wife was approximately twenty-seven years old when they married and the husband was fifty-three. At the time of dissolution, she was forty-four and he was seventy, partially blind, and in failing health. It appears he was worth in excess of $3,000,000, while her estate was valued at approximately $27,000, not including the value of the gift the court adjudicated in her favor. The wife was unemployed during the marriage and throughout the twelve year separation the husband supported her in a comfortable style, the last year being to the tune of $22,000. Finally, it should be noted that earlier in the marriage, the husband had made a gift to the wife of a one-half interest in corporate stock, which interest, upon sale thereof by the husband, was worth in excess of $108,-000.
In the final judgment the trial court gave the wife a judgment for the value of the interest in the aforementioned stock, and ordered him to pay her $3,774.24 in delinquent temporary alimony. Although the wife had prayed for alimony in all of its forms, the trial court completely denied that prayer as well as her request for attorney’s fees and suit money. We hold that judicial act to be an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case and, on remand, direct the trial court to award the wife lump sum alimony, reasonable attorney’s fees, and suit money. We suggest the award of lump sum alimony should be an amount that, when coupled with the value of her present estate of $135,000, would, upon prudent investment, return approximately the income she had been accustomed to when married.
We have considered appellant’s other points on appeal and find them either moot or without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects except as to the denial of alimony, attorney’s fees, and suit money. On remand, the trial court is directed to award the wife lump sum alimony in accordance with this opinion, reasonable attorney’s fees, and suit money.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, and remanded with directions.
LETTS, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing filed by appel-lee is hereby denied.
DOWNEY and WALDEN, J., concur. LETTS, C.J., dissents with opinion.
LETTS, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
Upon reconsideration, it is my view that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed in all respects.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marianne v. Barry, 511 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…he award of lump sum alimony should be an amount which, when coupled with the value of the wife’s present estate, would, upon prudent investment, return approximately the income to which she had been accustomed during the marriage. Martyn v. Martyn, 422 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1983). Finally, on the issue of attorney’s fees and costs, the trial judge ordered each party to bear his or her own attorney’s fees. Due to the disparity in the parties’ earning abilities and fi…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)