JACQUELINE MOORE, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
JOSEPH MOORE, 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 this marriage dissolution appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's award of $55,000 lump sum alimony to the wife, finding the award was an abuse of discretion because the marital home was not a marital asset, the wife's mortgage contributions constituted fair living expenses, and the parties had substantially equal income and assets.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding any cash equivalent portion of the marital home to the wife. The award was reversed because: (1) the marital home was not a marital asset as the husband purchased it before marriage and held sole title; (2) the wife's mortgage contributions represented fair contribution to joint living expenses, not entitlement to equitable distribution; and (3) the wife demonstrated no special financial need justifying alimony where both parties had substantially equal income and assets.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding a cash equivalent portion of a marital home to a spouse when the home was purchased prior to the marriage and titled solel…
[2] A spouse's contribution toward mortgage payments on a pre-marital home titled solely in the other spouse's name does not entitle the contributing spouse to an equitable d…
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 marital home was not a marital asset inasmuch as the husband purchased the said home prior to the marriage, and the home was and still is titled solely in the husband's name”
Establishes the legal basis for treating the home as separate property and not subject to 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 intelligenceJacqueline and Joseph Moore divorced. The trial court awarded the wife $55,000 in lump sum alimony to be paid over seven years, characterizing it as e…
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 Financial Need cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment of marriage dissolution. The wife Jacqueline Moore urges as her sole point on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in making the following award to her:
“The [respondent [wife] is hereby awarded lump sum alimony of $55,000, which amount this [c]ourt finds to be equal to one-half of the equity in the [marital] house. This amount shall be paid to the [Respondent [wife] by the [p]etitioner [husband], so long as [Respondent is alive, in equal monthly installments over a period of seven (7) years beginning February 1, 1986.”
The wife claims that she was shortchanged by this provision and seeks a reversal for a more generous award. We cannot agree. On the contrary, we agree with the husband Joseph Moore on his cross appeal that this award should be stricken as the trial court abused its discretion in making any award whatever to the wife of a cash equivalent portion of the marital home. We reach this result for three reasons.
First, the marital home was not a marital asset inasmuch as the husband purchased the said home prior to the marriage, and the home was and still is titled solely in the husband’s name. Second, the wife’s contribution toward the mortgage payments on the home during the marriage did not entitle the wife, as urged, to an equitable distribution of the home as the payments represented no more than her fair contribution to the joint living expenses of the parties. Third, the wife makes no special showing that she is in financial need of a lump sum or periodic alimony award as, without dispute, she and the husband earn approximately the same income and own approximately the same assets, aside from the home. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201-02 (Fla.1980); Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134, 136 (Fla.1976); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268, 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1981); Hessinger v. Hessinger, 378 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
The final judgment is affirmed on the main appeal; the final judgment is reversed on the cross appeal and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to strike the above-stated lump sum alimony award to the wife.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ROY v. ROY, 522 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…he governing circumstances of the parties are virtually the same in all material respects and there is no basis for preferring one spouse over the other as concerns alimony. See Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Moore v. Moore, 490 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). We reverse the provision in the judgment which reserves jurisdiction to award alimony to the wife in the future. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1976)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Hessinger v. Hessinger, 378 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)