REVALLE ROBBINS, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY C. ROBBINS, 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 divorce case involving a closely held amusement park corporation, the trial court awarded the wife an undivided one-half interest in the husband's stock rather than its cash value. The appellate court reversed, holding that granting a non-controlling spouse an interest in a closely held corporation is impractical and denies equitable distribution, and remanded for the trial court to award the wife the cash value of her stock interest through alternative means.
The court reversed the trial court's division of stock, holding that granting a former spouse an undivided interest in closely held corporation stock is impractical and violates equitable distribution principles. The wife must receive the cash value of her stock interest, which the trial court must implement through various alternatives such as requiring the husband to purchase her interest, make installment payments, or require a sale of the stock.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding a spouse an interest in the stock of a closely held corporation, as this forces the former spouses to operate as business…
[2] A trial court must award a spouse the full and complete benefit of equitable distribution, which may include the cash value of marital assets.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Granting the wife a one-half interest in the stock of a closely held corporation has the effect of requiring the former spouses to operate as business partners. Such a financial arrangement is intolerable”
Establishes the core holding that awarding non-controlling interest in closely held stock violates equitable distribution principles
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt the time of divorce, the husband held controlling interest in a closely held amusement park corporation valued at $4 million. The trial court class…
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 Alimony Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The wife appeals the property distribution in a divorce case. We reverse.
At the time of the divorce, the husband held the controlling interest in his closely held amusement park corporation. The trial court held the husband’s stock in this business to be a marital asset and valued the stockholdings at $4 million. The court transferred an undivided one-half interest in the husband’s stock to the wife subject to restrictions on her use of the stock. He also awarded the wife $5,000 per month in alimony and otherwise divided the other tangible property between the pair. The wife appeals the court’s failure to award her the $2 million cash value of her share of the corporate stock.
Granting the wife a one-half interest in the stock of a closely held corporation has the effect of requiring the former spouses to operate as business partners. Such a financial arrangement is intolerable, Novak v. Novak, 429 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1983); see Kaylor v. Kaylor, 390 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), Bird v. Bird, 385 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and places the spouse without any real control over the closely held corporation at a distinct disadvantage to the spouse who runs the business.
The trial court’s failure to award the wife the value of the stock denied her the full and complete benefit of equitable distribution. We therefore, reverse that portion of the marriage dissolution order which divided the stock one-half to each party. This result requires vacation of the $5,000 per month permanent periodic alimony award to the wife so that the trial court may consider alimony needs in light of the cash distribution to the wife of her share of the corporate stock.
The trial court found that the husband did not have the financial ability to make an immediate cash payout to the wife. However, there are various alternatives which the trial court may consider in order to provide the wife with the cash value of her stock. Alternatives include: requiring the husband to purchase the wife’s interest within a reasonable time; directing the husband to make periodic installment payments on a lump sum obligation or principal repayment or both; or requiring a sale of the corporate stock at issue and distributing the profits equally. Our suggestions are by way of illustration rather than limitation upon the chancellor’s power to make and implement an equitable decree.
Upon remand, the chancellor’s goal should be to devise a plan of distribution which causes the least interference with the ongoing business of the corporation, yet which is practical and beneficial to both spouses. In cases involving situations such as this, the chancellor, after determining the equitable distribution which is to be made, should nonetheless schedule a further hearing (evidentiary in nature if required) where, with the assistance of the parties or their counsel, a suitable plan for implementing the property distribution can be devised.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…spute that the PPC stock is a marital asset and that the stock value is subject to equitable distribution.4 Lanzetta v. Lanzetta, 563 [*642] So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 550 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Robbins v. Robbins, 549 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1990); Manzella v. Manzella, 473 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Novak v. Novak, 429 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1983). The wife contends that the trial court err…1 / 2
-
Terje Gulbrandsen v. Gulbrandsen, 22 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ntained sufficient funds at the pertinent date to permit an equivalent $44,000 distribution to the former husband. . Awards providing for joint operations or property rights by former spouses are disfavored, for obvious reasons. Robbins v. Robbins, 549 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In this case, the former wife is placed in a position more analogous to a limited partner or minority shareholder. . In other cases, however, a court has determined that a particular patent is simply too speculative to consider.…
-
Norberto Menendez v. Rodriguez-Menendez, 871 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…Saxton v. Saxton, 454 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)) (“[w]hen property valuation is an integral part of the court’s entire plan of distribution, confusion as to value requires reversal of the property award”). As we observed in Robbins v. Robbins, 549 So. 2d 1033, 1033-34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), granting a former spouse a shared interest in the stock of a closely held corporation has the effect of “requiring the former spouses to operate as business partners. Such a financial arrangement is intolerable.” The pa…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Albert J.W. Novak v. Novak, 429 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Bird v. Bird, 385 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Kaylor v. Kaylor, 390 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)