MARTIN A. SOLL, APPELLANT,
v.
DAYL M. SOLL, 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 vacated the permanent alimony award of $500 per month as an abuse of discretion because, combined with the equitable distribution of the marital home, it exceeded the husband's ability to pay, but affirmed the transfer of the home to the wife.
An award of permanent alimony combined with equitable distribution that exceeds the obligor's ability to pay constitutes an abuse of discretion and must be vacated.
[1] An award of alimony combined with equitable distribution that exceeds the obligor's ability to pay constitutes an abuse of discretion and may be vacated while preserving…
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded the wife the husband's interest in the marital home as equitable distribution and lump sum alimo…
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 Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM
The ex-husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution insofar as it awarded the wife his interest in the marital home as equitable distribution and lump sum alimony and granted permanent alimony of $500 per month.
Upon consideration of all of the evidence, we find that these awards, taken together, amount to an unjustified “short-changing” of the husband beyond his ability to pay, and thus represent an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Thus, both awards cannot stand. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla.1980). At oral argument the parties indicated that, were we to reach this conclusion, they both preferred that we rectify the inequity by affirming the disposition of the home and setting the award of alimony aside. We agree that this remedy represents an acceptable appellate resolution of the situation. It is accordingly ordered that the award of alimony is vacated1 and the remaining portions of the judgment below, including the transfer of the husband’s interest in the home, are affirmed.
. Nothing in this opinion precludes the trial court from retaining jurisdiction to make an award of alimony in the future should a change in circumstances require that result. Greene v. Greene, 256 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 263 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1972).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…uled that the husband has no claim against the wife for wrongful termination as a PPC officer and employee. Because no basis for the disproportionate award appears in the record, we vacate the award of the marital home to the husband.7 Soll v. Soll, 560 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Bergstrom v. Bergstrom, 559 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 574 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1990); Zachary v. Zachary, 551 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Cobb; Satanonchai v. Satanonchai, 522 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see Canak…
-
Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Golf Course Towers Assocs., 568 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…diction to enforce the judgment. See Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (America) Corp., 564 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); A-One Coin Laundry [*503] Equip. Co. v. Waterside Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 561 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Soll v. Soll, 560 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In an action relating to the foreclosure of property, the trial court’s jurisdiction over the property ends after the entry of a final judgment and the time for altering, modifying or vacating the judgment expires. Patin v. Popin…
-
Horacio A. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 958 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…same), with Bressler v. Bressler, 914 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(upholding award of marital home), Russell v. Russell, 890 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(same), Manrique v. Manrique, 786 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(same), and Soll v. Soll, 560 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(same). . The court may take additional evidence, and may make additional or different awards, including equitable distribution, if appropriate.…
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
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Greene v. Greene, 256 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- City OF Orlando v. Tempest Storm, 263 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972)
- Greene v. Greene, 263 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972)