PETER URBAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPHINE URBAN, A/K/A JOZEFINA URBANOVA, 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 appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed awards of lump sum alimony, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney's fees to a Czechoslovak wife who abandoned her career and assets to marry and relocate to the United States. The court clarified that lump sum alimony may be awarded from the husband's personal estate and need not be limited to assets accumulated during the marriage.
The court held that lump sum alimony may be awarded from the husband's personal estate and is not limited to assets accumulated during the marriage; that five years of rehabilitative alimony was reasonable given the wife's age, language barrier, and need to develop job skills; and that the attorney's fee award was within the appropriate range.
[1] Lump sum alimony may be awarded out of the personal estate of a spouse, not solely from assets accumulated during the marriage.
[2] Rehabilitative alimony may be awarded for a period sufficient to allow a spouse to acquire English language proficiency and job skills.
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 intelligence“Lump sum alimony has been recognized as an appropriate award in this state for many years and may be awarded out of the personal estate of the husband.”
Establishes the court's holding that lump sum alimony is not limited to marital assets but can be paid from the husband's personal estate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1971, a 60-year-old American bachelor traveled to Czechoslovakia and married a 36-year-old woman. The wife gave up a well-paying job, sold her cond…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In 1971, at the age of 60 years, the appellant, a bachelor journeyed to Czechoslovakia and induced the appellee, who was then 36 years of age, to marry him and come to this country. The appellee gave up a well-paying job, sold her condominium apartment, liquidated her assets and was required to reimburse the Communist State for her education before she was permitted to leave Czechoslovakia.
The parties resided in Miami. A dissolution proceeding was commenced in the trial court wherein the wife waived any claim to the residence owned by the husband in which they had resided. Among other things, the final judgment of dissolution awarded the wife $75,000.00 as lum sum alimony, 5 years rehabilitative alimony and an attorney’s fee.
The appellant urges error in these awards, contending that lump sum alimony can only be awarded out of assets accumulated during the marriage, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), and that the period of time for rehabilitative alimony was too long and that the amount of attorney’s fee were excessive. We affirm. Lump sum alimony has been recognized as an appropriate award in this state for many years and may be awarded out of the personal estate of the husband. Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Nusbaum v. Nusbaum, 386 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Grobard v. Grobard, 382 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Lump sum alimony may also be awarded to the wife to make an equitable distribution of assets accumulated during the marriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra.
No abuse of discretion has been shown in providing 5 years of rehabilitative alimony. The wife was not fluent in English. An interpreter was required during the hearings in the trial court. She needs to learn the English language and to acquire a skill to enable her to enter the job market at approximately 50 years of age. McLean v. McLean, 384 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra; Moses v. Moses, 344 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Goldberg v. Goldberg, 327 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
The award of attorney’s fee was within the range of the evidence and there has been no error shown in this regard. Krasner v. Krasner, 339 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Flipse v. Flipse, 305 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Therefore the amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sarron v. Barbel I. Sarron, 429 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Urban v. Urban, 424 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Pino v. Pino, 418 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Kuvin v. Kuvin, 412 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Vanderslice v. Vanderslice, 396 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Murray v. Murray, 374 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Hausman v.…
-
Patience Duttenhofer v. Duttenhofer, 474 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…sideration of premarital sacrifices. The fact that the voluntary surrender of a remunerative job for a less remunerative one or none at all is recognized as an equitable factor which may be considered in awarding alimony, see, e.g., Urban v. Urban, 424 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Monzon v. Monzon, 349 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Brook v. Brook, 289 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 895 (Fla.1974), is not inconsistent with our view that a forfeiture which occurs upon marriage cannot be…
-
Bard v. Bard, 528 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Pollack v. Pollack, 517 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Gelman v. Gelman, 512 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gardner v. Gardner, 452 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Urban v. Urban, 424 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Yan [*1000] kow v. Yankow, 357 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Clair Krasner v. Krasner, 339 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Nusbaum v. Nusbaum, 386 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Donn F. Flipse v. Flipse, 305 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Moses v. Moses, 344 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Goldberg v. Goldberg, 327 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Marino de Lotto v. Moore, 382 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Grobard v. Grobard, 382 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)