YVONNE J. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM R. SMITH, 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.
Yvonne Smith appealed a final judgment dissolving her 17-year marriage, challenging the trial court's award of only the net proceeds from the marital home while denying her any interest in the husband's pension plan, other marital assets, or alimony. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider vested pension funds as marital assets and by providing the wife with inadequate equitable distribution and alimony, effectively awarding her nothing beyond her pre-existing interest in the marital home.
The trial court abused its discretion by failing to treat vested pension funds as marital assets and by failing to properly value all marital assets held in the husband's name. The court was obliged to consider these assets in determining the wife's entitlement to equitable distribution and alimony, and the husband's explanation for the disposition of such funds after filing for dissolution was legally insufficient to excuse this failure.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in a dissolution judgment by failing to consider vested pension funds accrued during the marriage as a marital asset for equitable dis…
[2] A trial court must determine the value of all marital assets held in a party's name when fashioning an equitable distribution scheme.
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“As we interpret the final judgment, it effectively awarded the wife nothing.”
Establishes the appellate court's threshold finding that the trial court's judgment was fundamentally inequitable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYvonne and William Smith were married for seventeen years. The trial court ordered the sale of their jointly-held marital home with equal division of …
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 Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1022] PER CURIAM.
Yvonne Smith appeals the final judgment dissolving her seventeen (17) year marriage to William Smith. The judgment ordered the sale of the jointly-held marital home and equal division of the net proceeds between the husband and wife. They each received their personal effects and the vehicle they used. The wife was given no interest in any other marital property owned by the husband, nor was she given any portion of the husband’s pension plan which accrued, in major part, during the marriage. The wife’s income from two jobs was less than half the husband’s income from his job but she was denied any rehabilitative or permanent alimony. The final judgment did not account for certain funds apparently held by the husband in a bank account or certificates of deposit.
As we interpret the final judgment, it effectively awarded the wife nothing. As half-owner of the marital home before the dissolution proceedings were filed, she was entitled to half of the proceeds upon its sale. She received nothing by way of alimony 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 husband’s explanation of the disposition of such funds after he filed this dissolution action was not legally sufficient to excuse the court’s failure to treat those funds as marital assets. Additionally, the trial court failed to determine the value of all marital assets held in the husband’s name.
The judgment, therefore, is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reconsider appellant’s right to periodic or lump sum alimony and equitable distribution of the marital assets held in the husband’s name, and to fashion an equitable distribution scheme, including the award of permanent periodic alimony or lump sum alimony, or both, in the exercise of the court’s discretion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)
- Marcheret v. Marcheret, 498 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)