PATRICIA A. MARCHERET, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN W. MARCHERET, 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.
Patricia Marcheret appealed a final judgment dissolving her 18-year marriage in which the trial court denied her any alimony or equitable distribution and awarded her husband exclusive rent-free use of the marital home. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial judge abused his discretion and ordering that alimony and equitable distribution be awarded on remand, with a different trial judge assigned to conduct further proceedings.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the wife alimony and equitable distribution, which must be awarded on remand within the trial court's discretion. If the husband is awarded exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home, he must pay the wife fair rental compensation for her one-half share. The dissolution, custody, and shared parental responsibility awards are affirmed.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a spouse both equitable distribution and alimony in a marriage dissolution.
[2] A spouse awarded exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home must pay fair rental value for the other spouse's share.
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 trial judge abused his discretion in denying the wife permanent alimony and an equitable distribution of the marital assets”
Establishes the primary basis for reversal on the alimony and distribution issue
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 18 years. The marital home was held as tenants by the entireties. The trial court denied the wife any equitable distribut…
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 Fair Rental Value cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment dissolving an eighteen-year marriage, denying the wife any equitable distribution or alimony, and awarding the husband the exclusive rent-free use of the marital home formerly held by the parties as tenants by the entireties. Our review of the record compels us to conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the wife permanent alimony and an equitable distribution of the marital assets, and we direct that they be awarded upon remand, the amount of such awards to be within the trial court’s sound discretion. The trial judge was also in error in allowing the husband to occupy the marital home without paying to the wife a fair rental for her one-half share of the home, Schein v. Schein, 448 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); however, since our remand to the trial court also requires the reconsideration of the very award of exclusive use and occupancy of the home to the husband, we direct that, should the trial court determine that the husband is to exclusively use and occupy the home, it must concomitantly require the husband to pay to the wife a fair rental for her one-half share.
Therefore, we affirm the dissolution, the attorney’s fees award, and those portions of the judgment dealing with custody of the children and shared parental responsibility. Our concern that the decision to deny alimony and equitable distribution to the wife was not arrived at by the exercise of the dispassionate neutrality to which the parties were entitled makes us direct that all further proceedings in the matter be conducted before another trial judge to be administratively assigned in the customary manner. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weisfeld v. Weisfeld, 513 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…bution of parties’ [*1283] jointly held marital property); Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1201 (“[Tjhe award of the marital home as lump sum alimony may be coupled with other lump sum alimony awards if justified by the evidence.”); Marcheret v. Marcheret, 498 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (trial court abused its discretion in awarding husband rent-free exclusive possession of marital residence); Schein, 448 So. 2d at 16 (husband required to pay rent to wife where his award of exclusive possession of their marital r…
-
Smith v. Smith, 537 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…y or equitable distribution of the other marital assets. We agree with appellant that she was “short-changed” and the trial court abused its discretion in this instance. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Marcheret v. Marcheret, 498 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The trial court was obliged to consider the vested pension funds as a marital asset in passing upon the wife’s entitlement to equitable distribution and alimony. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986). The husban…
Authorities Cited
- Martina Schein v. Schein, 448 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)