MANUEL FERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA FERNANDEZ, 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 marriage dissolution case, the husband appeals the trial court's award of lump sum alimony to the wife consisting of his one-half interests in commercial property and the marital home. The appellate court affirms, finding the awards justified by the wife's permanent disability from a gunshot wound negligently inflicted by the husband and the long-term nature of the 30-year marriage.
The court affirmed the lump sum alimony awards, finding no abuse of discretion. The award for the commercial property was justified by the wife's $53,000 in medical expenses and permanent disability from the gunshot wound; the award for the marital home was justified by the wife's permanent disability, disfigurement, loss of wage-earning capacity, and the 30-year length of the marriage.
[1] A lump sum alimony award may be justified to compensate a spouse for significant medical expenses incurred due to the other spouse's negligence.
[2] A lump sum alimony award may be justified based on a spouse's permanent disability, disfigurement, and loss of wage-earning capacity resulting from an injury.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“This award was fully justified as it substantially compensated the wife for $53,000 in medical expenses incurred by her as a result of a severe gunshot wound to the mouth which was negligently inflicted on her by the husband.”
Establishes the legal basis for the lump sum alimony award regarding the commercial property—compensation for injuries negligently caused by the husband.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManuel and Maria Fernandez were married for 30 years. During the marriage, Maria suffered a severe gunshot wound to the mouth negligently inflicted by…
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 Permanent Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband Manuel Fernandez appeals a final judgment of marriage dissolution and attacks the propriety of the trial court’s award of lump sum alimony to the wife Maria Fernandez of (1) the husband’s one-half interest in certain commercial property currently being operated as a garage, minus $7,500 which wife must pay the husband, and (2) the husband’s one-half interest in the marital home. We affirm based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, we have no trouble sustaining the lump sum alimony award as to the commercial property. This award was fully justified as it substantially compensated the wife for $53,000 in medical expenses incurred by her as a result of a severe gunshot wound to the mouth which was negligently inflicted on her by the husband. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980); White v. White, 429 So. 2d 730, 732 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for review denied, 438 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1983); Vanderslice v. Vanderslice, 396 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Second, we have had some trouble with respect to the lump sum alimony award as to the marital home, but conclude that no abuse of discretion has been shown. The award, we think, was justified based primarily on the trial court’s finding that the wife has a permanent disability due to the aforesaid gunshot wound which has caused disfigurement to the wife and a permanent loss in her wage earning capacity. Moreover, this was a long-term (30-year) marriage which further supports the award. Odom v. Odom, 452 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Klein v. Klein, 413 So. 2d 1297, 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also Seum v. Seum, 384 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Third, we have not overlooked the husband’s contention that he was deprived of his interest in the substantial assets of the marriage, but find no abuse of discretion in this result. This is so because (a) the husband was admittedly at fault in inflicting the disabling gunshot wound on the wife which has had a devastating impact upon her, (b) the husband, although older and perhaps less able than the wife, is capable of obtaining employment and is trained as a mechanic, (c) the husband received $7,500 in cash and a small parcel of land in Port St. Lucie, and (d) the wife’s income picture — although presently good due to the constant help of her children — is far from assured due to her permanent disability and her continual need for help from others. See Dewberry v. Dewberry, 455 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (test is not how large or small an award is but whether it is equitable); Black v. Black, 490 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA .1986); § 61.08, Fla.Stat. (1985).
The final judgment of marriage dissolution is, therefore, in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hahn v. Hahn, 595 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…nakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Thompson v. Thompson, 546 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), remanded on other grounds, 576 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1991); Vanderslice v. Vanderslice, 396 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Fernandez v. Fernandez, 511 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1988). The record also clearly reflects that the husband’s future pension was, properly, not considered as a source of present income, as he was far from retirement age, but was considered in the…
-
Lenard Handsel v. Handsel, 614 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…8). The award of lump sum alimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion, as it partially compensated the wife for the overwhelming medical expenses incurred and anticipated because of the husband’s egregious behavior. See Fernandez v. Fernandez, 511 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (award to wife of lump sum alimony consisting of parties’ major marital assets not abuse of discretion in light of permanent disability to wife caused when husband shot her in the face), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1988). See…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Jenkins v. State, 396 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Elga B. White v. Latrell White, 429 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Seum v. Seum, 384 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Klein v. Klein, 413 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Black v. Black, 490 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Dewberry v. Dewberry, 455 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)