RONALD LEE POWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THORDIS G. POWELL, 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 Florida dissolution case, the husband appeals a final judgment awarding the wife rehabilitative alimony, a special equity in his business, payment of medical bills, a 1977 Toyota Corolla, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in all respects, finding the awards constituted equitable property distribution and appropriate alimony based on the wife's demonstrated need and the husband's financial ability to pay.
The court affirmed all awards, holding that the Toyota Corolla award was a proper equitable and just distribution of marital property in the nature of lump sum alimony, that the husband had sufficient notice of the claims, and that the wife adequately demonstrated her need and the husband's financial ability to pay the rehabilitative alimony and attorney's fees.
[1] A vehicle purchased during the marriage, even if titled in one spouse's name, may be awarded as lump sum alimony to ensure an equitable distribution of marital property.
[2] A trial court may award rehabilitative alimony and attorney's fees upon a sufficient demonstration of the requesting spouse's need and the other spouse's financial abilit…
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 award of the Toyota assures an equitable and just distribution of property acquired during the marriage, and being in the nature of lump sum alimony, was proper”
Establishes that property awards in dissolution can serve as lump sum alimony and constitute equitable distribution
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 approximately seven months before the husband filed for dissolution. At the wife's request before marriage, she closed he…
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 Property cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution awarding the wife rehabilitative alimony; a “special equity” in the husband’s business; payment by the husband of all outstanding hospital and doctor bills incurred by the wife through the date of the final hearing; a 1977 Toyota Corolla purchased during the marriage but titled in the husband’s name; and payment by the husband of the wife’s attorney’s fees.
The parties to this dissolution action were married for approximately seven months before the husband decided that the marriage was irretrievably broken, and filed for dissolution. Prior to the marriage, the wife, at the husband’s request, closed down her own business and transferred some equipment to the husband’s business; she was unemployed for most of the marriage. At the time of the dissolution, the husband owned a paint and body shop, several vehicles, a $6,000 boat, a $17,000 business account, and a $14,000 secured account. In comparison, the wife had $7,000 in a savings account, a 1975 Volkswagen in need of repair, no business, and a son (by a previous marriage) to support.
We affirm the final judgment in all respects. A careful review of the record assures us that the husband had sufficient notice as to the wife’s claim for the Toyota Corolla and for payment of the medical bills. Specifically, the award of the Toyota assures an equitable and just distribution of property acquired during the marriage, and being in the nature of lump sum alimony, was proper. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949, 952 (Fla.1980); Bird v. Bird, 385 So. 2d 1090, 1091 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Moreover, the wife sufficiently demonstrated her need and the husband’s financial ability to pay the award of rehabilitative alimony and attorney’s fees. The husband has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion.
BOOTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
- Bird v. Bird, 385 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)