BARBARA H. CLEMENTS, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES H. CLEMENTS, JR., 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 marital dissolution case, the wife appealed the trial court's denial of alimony, attorney's fees, an allegedly inadequate child support award, and failure to recognize her special equity in her husband's construction business. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the financial awards and determining that the wife's limited secretarial and bookkeeping services did not establish a special equity interest in the business.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying alimony and attorney's fees or in the child support award, as the record does not show that no reasonable judge would reach the same conclusions. The wife did not establish a special equity in the business because her brief and limited secretarial and bookkeeping services constituted normal marital duties rather than substantial contributions.
[1] A trial court's discretion in awarding alimony and attorney's fees will not be overturned on appeal unless no reasonable person would adopt the trial court's view.
[2] Brief and limited secretarial or bookkeeping services provided by a spouse for a business created shortly before separation do not necessarily establish a special equity…
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“Although the awards received by the wife were not generous, we cannot say, based on this record, that no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial judge.”
Establishes the deferential abuse of discretion standard applied to alimony and support awards in dissolution cases.
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' marriage dissolved after the husband created a construction business approximately one year before separation, during which time he sold …
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 Special Equity In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Chief Judge.
Appellant (wife) seeks to overturn a final judgment of dissolution of marriage on the ground that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying her request for alimony and attorney’s fees and in making an inadequate child support award. Although the awards received by the wife were not generous, we cannot say, based on this record, that no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial judge. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Appellant also asserts that the trial judge erred in determining that she did not have a special equity in her husband’s business. We disagree and affirm. The husband has a construction business which was created about one year before the parties separated. During this time, he sold about five houses. The wife provided some secretarial and bookkeeping services for the business. However, we do not consider that efforts of such brief duration and limited extent necessarily fall outside the range of normal marital duties. See Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla.1980) (husband’s efforts in constructing improvements on out-of-state property did not entitle him to a special equity in the property); Holley v. Holley, 380 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980) (wife’s efforts in assisting her husband in an unsuccessful statewide judicial campaign, working as a secretary for him for a time, and assisting him when he authored a law book did not entitle her to a special equity in her husband’s law practice). Compare the following cases where the wife’s contributions established her special equity in the husband’s business: Beugnet v. Beugnet, 383 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (wife worked in husband’s bar without pay full-time for three years and part-time for ten years as a bartender, waitress, bookkeeper, etc.); Neff v. Neff, 386 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980) (wife devoted as much as 16-18 hours per day, seven days a week, for many years to help her husband develop the business, while simultaneously tending the home, raising three children, and discharging the social and civil obligations of the family); Johnson v. Johnson, 454 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (wife worked part-time as bookkeeper for ten years without salary for corporation in which husband owned 49% of the stock).
AFFIRMED.
NIMMONS, J., concurs.
WENTWORTH, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
- Neff v. Neff, 386 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Holley v. Holley, 380 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 454 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Beugnet v. Beugnet, 383 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)