GEORGE WYNN, APPELLANT,
v.
SHIRLEY A. WYNN, 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 trial court awarded the wife lump sum alimony consisting of the marital residence and other real property plus significant personal property, while the husband received certain vehicles and divided assets. The appellate court reversed the award of the husband's interest in the major marital assets, finding no legal justification for unequal distribution where the wife had sufficient earnings capacity.
The award to the wife of the husband's interest in the Pineapple realty and all itemized personal property is reversed as an unjustified and unequal distribution of marital assets. The wife receives only the items she selected (valued at $5,900) and the husband receives the remaining items (valued at $5,516), with the final judgment otherwise affirmed.
[1] Lump sum alimony is not justified for support purposes when a spouse has sufficient earnings and earning ability.
[2] An unequal distribution of marital assets is improper without necessity or legal justification, especially when it shortchanges one partner.
Previewing 2 of 5 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's earnings and earning ability are such as not to justify lump sum alimony for support purposes. She was found to be entitled to no special equities and there is no necessity or legal justification for making an unequal and inequitable distribution to her of the husband's interest in the most valuable of the marital assets”
Establishes the court's reasoning that absent sufficient need or special circumstances, unequal distribution of major marital assets is not justified
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge and Shirley Wynn dissolved their marriage. The trial court divided some marital assets equally (stock, silver certificates, and an investment a…
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 Tenancy In Common cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this dissolution action the trial judge equitably distributed some of the marital assets by equally dividing stock and silver certificates and an investment account, awarding the husband a 1981 Chevrolet van, a boat, motor and trailer, and awarding the wife a 1978 Oldsmobile. However, the wife was then awarded, as lump sum alimony, the parties’ jointly held interest in the major marital assets, being the marital residence and other real property at 2243 Pineapple Avenue, Melbourne, Florida, and itemized personal property totaling $10,-545.
Here, as in Lynch v. Lynch, 437 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), and Gorman v. Gorman, 400 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), the wife’s earnings and earning ability are such as not to justify lump sum alimony for support purposes. She was found to be entitled to no special equities and there is no necessity or legal justification for making an unequal and inequitable distribution to her of the husband’s interest in the most valuable of the marital assets which the parties, upon dissolution, would otherwise share equally as tenants in common under section 689.15, Florida Statutes. Such an unnecessary, unjustified, and unequal distribution of marital assets shortchanges one marital partner and is correctable on appeal. See Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985); Ente v. Ente, 442 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Accordingly, the award to the wife of the husband’s interest in the Pineapple realty and in all of the personalty listed on petitioner’s exhibit six is reversed.1 The wife is awarded the items selected and circled by her on petitioner’s exhibit six (valued at $5,900) and the husband is awarded the remaining items (valued at $5,516). The final judgment is otherwise affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER and CO-WART, JJ., concur. . This holding is subject, of course, to the right of each party to an accounting and share of income from the property and to the obligation of each party to pay his or her proportionate share of all mortgage, insurance, taxes and necessary maintenance. See Farrington v. Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1981); Smith v. Smith, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 388 So. 2d 1118 (Fla.1980); Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Wood v. Friedman, 388 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Addison L. Bain v. Ingeborg K. Bain, 553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ve an equitable distribution of marital assets. Generally, a 50/50 split of marital assets is not required, but is a good starting point. Moore v. Moore, 543 So. 2d 252, 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).1 Unequal distribution must be justified. Wynn v. Wynn, 478 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Ente at 234. Marital assets include assets acquired during a marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them.2 The choice of dates to value marital assets is largely within the trial court’s discretion. Moore at 257;…1 / 2
-
Halberg v. Halberg, 519 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…require equal division of the marital assets, see Carroll; De Cenzo, equal apportionment “is a good starting point.” Carroll, 471 So. 2d at 1361. In the absence of any legal or practical reason for unequal and inequitable distribution, Wynn v. Wynn, 478 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), we find no basis for the court’s disproportionate awards. We therefore reverse those portions of the trial court’s order dealing with distribution of assets and remand with directions to apply the principles of equitable distrib…
-
RICO v. Rosario RICO, 487 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ompetent substantial evidence in the record to support the award here, so logic and justification for the result are absent. Under those circumstances, there is an abuse of discretion. See Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985); Wynn v. Wynn, 478 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (an unnecessary, unjustified, and unequal distribution of marital assets that shortchanges one marital partner is correctable on appeal). In dividing marital assets, a trial judge should ensure that neither spouse automatically…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Gorman v. Gorman, 400 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Maita P. Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Rubino v. Rubino, 372 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Farrington v. Prince Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- In re The Marriage of Lynn Earl Lynch v. Lynch, 437 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Smith v. Smith, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Adams v. Division OF Administration, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Wood v. Friedman, 388 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- WAY v. State, 442 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)