GEORGE A. WOMBLE, APPELLANT,
v.
BRENDA J. WOMBLE, 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 appellate court reversed and remanded to allow the trial court to reconsider the entire equitable distribution award in light of its prior direction to award permanent periodic alimony, recognizing that equitable distribution and support are interrelated components of an overall scheme.
Equitable distribution and alimony support are interrelated and integral parts of an overall scheme, and the trial court must be permitted to revisit the entire award when changing from temporary to permanent periodic alimony.
[1] Equitable distribution and alimony support are interrelated components of an overall marital property and support scheme, and a trial court must be authorized to revisit…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“equitable distribution and support can be and normally are interrelated and therefore are normally integral parts of an overall scheme”
The court acknowledged its prior oversight in not recognizing the interconnected nature of equitable distribution and alimony awards.
In a divorce case, the trial court awarded the wife temporary rehabilitative alimony and made an equitable distribution of marital assets. On appeal, …
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
The trial court in the original final judgment made an equitable distribution and awarded the wife temporary rehabilitative alimony. This court reversed and remanded on the grounds that the wife should have been awarded permanent periodic alimony. Womble v. Womble, 521 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 528 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1988). On remand, the trial court followed this court’s directive but opined that he had considered the temporary alimony in making an equitable distribution but was not authorized by this court’s mandate to revisit the entire award.
In the original opinion we should have recognized that equitable distribution and support can be and normally are interrelated and therefore are normally integral parts of an overall scheme1 and we should have authorized the trial court, if he saw fit, to revisit the distribution of marital assets and set the permanent periodic alimony in an amount consistent with that scheme.
In order to correct this oversight, we reverse and remand with express permission for the trial court to revisit the entire award and determine if the equitable distribution should be changed in any particular in view of this court’s prior direction of an award of permanent periodic alimony.
REVERSE and REMAND.
ORFINGER and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980) and Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…he realized it would never equal) the standard of living enjoyed during the parties’ long-term marriage.1 That is clearly a valid function for a permanent alimony award. See, e.g., Bible v. Bible, 597 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Womble v. Womble, 546 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). I am concerned that trial judges in this district will read this majority opinion and conclude that if a former spouse has worked during the course of the marriage, or holds a modestly remunerative job when a dissolution occurs…
-
Sinclair v. Sinclair, 594 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…on scheme and the alimony award and remand for the trial court’s reconsideration. Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.1986); Mayers v. Mayers, 575 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); O’Dell v. O’Dell, 583 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Womble v. Womble, 546 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In addition, the trial court erred in determining child support. The final judgment provided $1,600 as child support for the two children. That amount fell to $800 in December 1991, when the daughter attained the age of majorit…
-
Wilson v. McKAY, 568 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…y, 528 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.490(c). Furthermore, the husband did not waive his right to object by participating in the hearing after filing his objection. Kuper; see Bathurst, 533 So. 2d at 941 n. 3; cf. Goldfarb v. Agran, 546 So. 2d 24, 25 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (where husband did not object to ex-parte referral to general master “[he] waived any objections he may have had ... by voluntarily participating in the hearing before the general master.”); Cox v. Cox, 490 So. 2d 1051 (F…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- McQUIGGAN v. State, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Womble v. Womble, 521 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)