THOMAS P. THIEL, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
KATHRYN M. THIEL, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's division of marital assets and alimony awards in a 17-year marriage dissolution, but modified the judgment to award all silver to the wife and require the husband to pay the children's medical expenses.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the wife the husband's interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony, periodic alimony, child support, and half of jointly held personal property, but the judgment was modified to award all silver to the wife and require the husband to pay the children's medical expenses.
[1] When a spouse offers to award specific marital property to the other spouse, the trial court errs in dividing that property between the parties rather than awarding it en…
[2] A trial court errs in failing to order a spouse to continue paying the children's medical expenses when the spouse has offered to do so.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 parties were married for 17 years, accumulated substantial assets including a five-bedroom home in an exclusive subdivision, maintained a lavish l…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment dissolving a 17-year marriage. Over the years, the parties have accumulated substantial assets, not the least of which is a five bedroom home in an exclusive subdivision. The parties have maintained a rather lavish life style. There are two minor children who have also been educated and raised in a similarly lavish manner. In its final judgment, the trial court awarded the wife the husband’s interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony, $640 per month rehabilitative alimony for four years, $1,000 per month permanent periodic alimony, $100 per week child support for each of the two children, one-half of all the jointly held personal property, and $5500 in attorneys’ fees. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making these awards and affirm them. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), and Hurtado v. Hurtado, 407 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
The wife has filed a cross-appeal raising five issues, two of which require modification of the final judgment. The husband offered to give the wife all the silver and it was error for the trial court to divide the silver between the parties. Furthermore, the husband offered to continue paying the children’s medical expenses and the trial court erred in not ordering him to do so. The final judgment is modified by awarding the silver to the wife and requiring that the husband pay the children’s medical expenses. It is affirmed in all other aspects.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
DOWNEY, J., and GARRETT, EUGENE S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Consuelo M. Palermo v. Edgard F. Palermo, 649 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…lely responsible for the payments. We reverse and remand for modification of the final judgment to reflect this concession. See Edwards v. Edwards, 559 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989); Thiel v. Thiel, 426 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). As to the allocation of credit card debts, the trial court clearly intended to divide liabilities equally. Although the court allocated the credit card liability so that the sums owed by each party were roughly equal, the net…
-
Emilie Marie O'Keefe v. O'Keefe, 448 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…la.1980). We opine that the trial court erred in failing to order appellee, Edmund H. O’Keefe, to provide medical insurance coverage for the minor children of the marriage when appellee offered to continue to provide such coverage. Thiel v. Thiel, 426 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. HURLEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Hurtado v. Rose-Jean Hurtado, 407 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)