DENNIS T. WELLMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNA WELLMAN, 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 a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the husband appealed the trial court's award of the marital residence to the wife as lump sum alimony. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because competent substantial evidence supported the award given the parties' disparate incomes and the wife's need as the resident parent of minor children.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the marital residence to the wife as lump sum alimony. Competent substantial evidence supported the award based on the husband's greater income and earning capacity, his financial ability to pay the award without endangering his economic status, and the wife's need as the resident parent of minor children.
[1] Trial courts possess broad discretion in distributing family assets and making awards in dissolution of marriage proceedings.
[2] Awards made in dissolution of marriage proceedings will not be disturbed on appeal unless no reasonable person would adopt the view taken by the trial court.
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“Such awards may not be disturbed unless no reasonable person would adopt the view taken by the trial court.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to trial court discretion in dissolution proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a marriage dissolution case, the trial court awarded the marital residence to the wife as lump sum alimony. The husband had significantly greater i…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals from that portion of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding the marital residence to the wife as lump sum alimony. We affirm.
The trial court is vested with broad discretion to distribute family assets and make appropriate awards in dissolution of marriage proceedings. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Such awards may not be disturbed unless no reasonable person would adopt the view taken by the trial court. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1202. As stated by the court in Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542, 544 (Fla.1985), “[i]f a reviewing court finds that there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a particular award, then there is logic and justification for the result and it is unlikely that no reasonable person would adopt the view taken by the trial court.”
We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that it contains competent substantial evidence to support the challenged lump sum award to the wife of the husband’s interest in the marital home. The wife received no other alimony award, either permanent or rehabilitative; although both parties were employed, the husband’s income and earning capacity were much greater than the wife’s; and the husband had the financial ability to pay such award without endangering his economic status and the wife had a need therefor as the resident parent of the parties’ minor child. See Safferstone v. Safferstone, 501 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (Nesbitt, J., dissenting) (opining that lump sum award of marital home to wife instead of permanent periodic alimony, and in addition to rehabilitative alimony, was appropriate in view of parties’ disparate incomes and earning abilities and wife’s substantial contributions to marriage and to husband’s education); Robertson v. Robertson, 473 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (affirming award of marital home to wife as lump sum alimony in lieu of a permanent periodic award where there was a substantial disparity in parties’ earning abilities and incomes).
Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, under the standards enunciated above, in awarding the wife the marital home as lump sum alimony. Therefore, the final judgment under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Broom, 523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…court affirmed. Broom v. State, 487 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Appellee filed another motion to vacate in Polk County Circuit Court in 1986. This motion was denied, and appel-lee appealed to this court, which affirmed the denial. Broom v. State, 504 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Subsequently, appellee was transferred to an institution in Pinellas County. Thereafter, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Pinellas County Circuit Court and an amendment thereto, all of which challenged the legali…
-
Broom v. Tucker, 94 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 2012)…d 52 (Fla.2d DCA 2010) (No. 2D10-285) (dismissing habeas corpus petition) (table decision); Broome [sic] v. State, 790 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (No. 2D01-1322) (affirming the judgment denying a motion for postconviction relief); Broom v. State, 504 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (No. 87-608) (affirming the judgment denying a motion to vacate conviction and sentence); Broom v. State, 487 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (No. 86-538) (affirming the judgment denying a motion for postcon-viction relief) (table d…
-
Agustin DE LA Guardia v. DE LA Guardia, 536 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…Am.Jur.2d, Insurance § 978. Therefore finding no error in the trial court’s award of both lump sum and periodic alimony, Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1986); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Wellman v. Wellman, 504 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Buttner v. Buttner, 484 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and in equitable distribution of the marital assets, we affirm the final judgment under review, except that we modify same by adding a provision that will permit the wife t…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Robertson v. Delphine M. Robertson, 473 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Safferstone v. Safferstone, 501 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)