THAD RICHARD SIZEMORE, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MARION LUCILLE SIZEMORE, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a dissolution decree's alimony and asset awards but reversed the attorney's fees award, finding it inequitable given the parties' relatively equal economic circumstances post-dissolution.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony and marital assets. However, the award of attorney's fees to the former wife was an abuse of discretion because the parties departed the marriage in relatively equal economic circumstances.
“Although the awards received by the former wife were generous, we cannot say, based on this record, no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.”
Establishes the standard of review for the alimony and asset awards and the court's initial finding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a dissolution, the trial court awarded the former wife $575 per week in alimony, $200 per week in child support, and $333,500 in marital ass…
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 Alimony Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The former husband seeks to overturn a dissolution decree on the grounds that the trial judge abused his discretion in making awards of permanent alimony and attorney’s fees. Although the awards received by the former wife were generous, we cannot say, based on this record, no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
However, we do find error in the trial court’s $5,000.00 award of attorney’s fees to the wife, to be paid by the husband. She was awarded $575.00 per week in alimony, $200.00 per week in child support, and $333,500.00 in marital assets. The former husband received $535,258.00 in assets, and has enjoyed an average income of at least $90,000.001 per year (exclusive of corporate fringe benefits which he has enjoyed in the past), together with other side business income. Where the parties depart the marriage in relatively equal economic circumstances, it is error to award attorney’s fees to one party. Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.
. The husband’s 1983 tax returns showed gross income in excess of $182,000.00, exclusive of corporate fringe benefits. However, the husband testified that for the first six months of 1984 his income was only $33,000.00. The record reveals it was impossible for the trial judge to arrive at an accurate figure which would represent the husband’s real income. He therefore averaged the husband's gross income for the years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 to arrive at the $90,000.00 figure.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
In my opinion the amount of the alimony is excessive. The appellant does not earn an average income of $90,000. The record reflects that his source of income is a one-man corporation engaged in the construction business, which corporation has suffered a loss of contracts and thus a loss of income in the most recent times. His income for the relevant time period, at the time of the divorce, was $33,000 for six months which, of course, would be a projected annual gross income of $66,000. He is required, then, to pay appellee $40,-300 in alimony and child support where the record shows he will only gross, before taxes, $66,000. Further, the record indicates that the corporation would be in a deficit situation in order to pay the $66,000 salary to appellant.
While I realize that if the husband fails next year to earn the “average” income of $90,000 mentioned in the majority opinion that the husband would be entitled to seek a reduction in alimony payments, I still am convinced it was error to award that excessive amount in the first place. I agree appellee should pay her own attorney’s fees. Anyone with over $300,000 in assets and a $30,000 per year income (plus $10,400 child support) can afford to pay a good lawyer.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Blankenship v. Blankenship, 502 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…marital assets in this case was equal, or unequal in favor of the wife, who left the marriage with resources from which she is well able to pay her own attorney’s fees. See Beaver v. Beaver, 500 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Sizemore v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); McIntyre v. McIntyre, 434 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part. DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ…
-
Naugle v. Naugle, 632 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Having placed the parties in the same relative financial position, it was error to require that Robert pay Evelyn’s attorney’s fees. See Blankenship v. Blankenship, 502 So. 2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Sizemore v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The trial judge may have had reasons for awarding attorney’s fees, but he did not give oral reasons at the hearing or written reasons in the final judgment. Additionally, there were no findings by the trial court as to t…
-
Duchesneau v. Duchesneau, 692 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…tions of the parties at the time of dissolution when they depart the marriage, not at some unspecified future date. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); Boyett v. Boyett, 683 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Sizemore v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). In Mishoe v. Mishoe, 591 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the First District noted that if a trial court could reserve jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees in the indefinite future, the party receiving the award could benefit f…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)