DIERDRE JANE FAILE, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
DAVID HALL FAILE, 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.
In a divorce case involving a 19-year marriage, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment of dissolution where the husband, age 63 and in poor health with a net worth exceeding $6 million, was ordered to provide lump sum alimony through a condominium and an irrevocable trust. The court reversed the trial court's decision to encumber the condominium with a $515,000 mortgage payable over 119 months, instead requiring the husband to pay off the mortgage so the wife receives the property free and clear.
The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the mortgage to remain on the condominium. The judgment awarding lump sum alimony in the condominium was reversed and the trial court was instructed to direct the husband to satisfy the mortgage and award the condominium to the wife free and clear of any encumbrance. All other aspects of the judgment were affirmed.
[1] A trial court's award of lump sum alimony may be reversed if it creates complications detrimental to a party without a corresponding advantage to the other.
[2] A trial court may reserve jurisdiction to oversee the formation, funding, and all aspects of a trust established for alimony payments.
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 husband has liquid assets of over 6 million dollars. The complications created by the mortgage pay off arrangement far outweigh the input of the husband having to repay the $515,000.00 so that the wife owns the apartment free and clear.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that the husband's substantial assets made payment of the mortgage a minimal burden compared to the complications created by the extended arrangement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband (age 63, in poor health with a 50% chance of surviving five years) and wife were married for 19 years. The husband purchased a Palm Beach …
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 Irrevocable Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
VOCELLE, L.B., Associate Judge.
Appellant wife seeks review of a Final Judgment of Dissolution.
Appellee husband cross appeals and cites error of a lump sum alimony awarded to the wife.
The husband is 63 and in very poor health. He has a 50-50 chance of surviving five years. His net worth is over 6 million dollars. The marriage is of some 19 years.
The trial court adequately provided for the wife’s needs and uniquely required an irrevocable trust to be set up by the husband for payment. The trial court reserved jurisdiction for the forming, funding and all aspects of the provision of the trust.
The trial court likewise provided a lump sum alimony to the wife of a condominium in Palm Beach. The condominium was purchased by the husband for the wife to live in after he was determined to divorce her and asked her to move out of the house. He purchased the condominium for cash. However, after the dissolution proceedings began, he encumbered the condominium with a mortgage of $515,000.00. The original term was three years. Most peculiarly, the trial court, without request from the parties, refinanced the mortgage by providing a payment period of 119 months.
The judgment does not expressly direct the irrevocable trust to make the monthly mortgage pay off after the husband’s death.
The husband has liquid assets of over 6 million dollars. The complications created by the mortgage pay off arrangement far outweigh the input of the husband having to repay the $515,000.00 so that the wife owns the apartment free and clear. It is obvious the lower court intended the wife to own the condominium free and clear, but by postponing the payment of the encumbrance for 10 years complicates matters to the detriment of the wife without any real advantage to the husband.
The Final Judgment as to the award of lump sum alimony in the condominium with a mortgage of $515,000.00 is reversed with instructions to the lower court directing the husband to satisfy the mortgage existing on the condominium and award the condominium to the wife free and clear of any encumbrance.
All other aspects of the Final Judgment are affirmed.
HURLEY, J., concurs.
LETTS, J., concurring in conclusion only.