MANUEL A. SUAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS SUAREZ, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a dissolution judgment, holding that the trial court erred in awarding the husband's interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony and in setting periodic alimony beyond his ability to pay.
A trial court errs in awarding one spouse's only valuable asset as lump sum alimony-equitable distribution when the parties have roughly equal financial situations, and in setting periodic alimony beyond the obligor's ability to pay.
[1] When parties to a dissolution have roughly equal financial situations, a trial court errs in awarding one spouse's only valuable asset as lump sum alimony-equitable distr…
[2] Periodic alimony must be set within the obligor's ability to pay and cannot be fixed at an amount plainly beyond his financial capacity.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded the wife the husband's interest in the marital home held as tenants by the entireties as lump su…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find ourselves in agreement with both of the ex-husband’s contentions on his appeal from the financial aspects of a judgment of dissolution.
First, it was error, in the light of the Suarezes’ roughly equal financial situations, to deprive the husband of his only valuable asset by awarding the wife his interest in the marital home, which had been held by the en-tireties, as lump sum alimony-equitable distribution. Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Harris v. Harris, 498 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Bullard v. Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Hence, the home shall be titled in the names of both Suarezes as tenants in common.
Second, the amount of periodic alimony is plainly far beyond the ex-husband’s ability to pay. Farrington v. Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1981); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see Dunstan v. Weatherspoon, 505 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Consequently, after remand, the trial court shall fix a substantially smaller amount upon consideration of the then existing circumstances, including the change required by our determination concerning the disposition of the home.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Farrington v. Prince Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Bullard v. Altha Elaine Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Harris v. Romenita Harris, 498 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Margaret Dunstan & the Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Donnie Weatherspoon, 505 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)