MARK MAYERS, APPELLANT,
v.
EDITH MAYERS, 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 court reversed the trial court's award of the marital home, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney fees to the wife upon dissolution of marriage, finding insufficient evidence to support the awards and requiring a new hearing for equitable distribution of marital assets and alimony determination.
Awards of the marital home as lump sum alimony, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney fees to the wife must be reversed and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing to determine proper equitable distribution of marital assets and alimony based on sufficient evidence.
[1] Equitable distribution of marital assets upon dissolution of marriage requires sufficient evidentiary support and must not leave one spouse with no identifiable assets wh…
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 intelligenceAfter a ten-year marriage between a 28-year-old woman and a 48-year-old man, the trial court awarded the wife the husband's interest in the marital ho…
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 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After a ten year marriage of a twenty-eight year old woman to a forty-eight year old man, the trial court awarded to the wife, upon the dissolution of marriage, the only substantial asset of the parties, to wit: the husband’s interest in the marital home, as lump sum alimony, $2,000.00 a month for forty-eight months as rehabilitative alimony, an automobile, and assessed attorney fees against the husband. The husband was left with no identifiable assets and substantial debts. There is insufficient evidence to support the awards to the wife.
We reverse said awards, with directions for the trial court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing, to determine the proper equitable distribution of marital assets and continuing responsibility, if any, on the part of the husband, in the form of alimony and to make an award of attorney’s fees, in light of the equitable distribution of the marital assets in accordance with the following authority. See Renzer v. Renzer, 553 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Zachary v. Zachary, 551 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Clemson v. Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Harris v. Harris, 498 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So. 2d 373 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989).
, Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carole v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…522 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).2 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the equitable distribution scheme and the alimony award, Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.1986); Sinclair v. Sinclair, 594 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Mayers v. Mayers, 575 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); on remand, the court shall award the wife permanent alimony. II. CREDIT TO HUSBAND FOR TEMPORARY PAYMENTS The wife contends that the trial court erred by awarding the husband credit for one hundred percent of the mortgage [and…
-
Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…d’s income, we reverse the trial court’s ruling that the wife should pay the husband’s attorney’s fees and direct the court to entertain further proceedings on the issue consistent with this opinion. Huntley, 578 So. 2d at 893; see Mayers v. Mayers, 575 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Second, we hold that the trial court erred in awarding the husband rehabilitative alimony, “The principal purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to establish the capacity for self-support of the receiving spouse, either through th…
-
Sinclair v. Sinclair, 594 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…9); Mann v. Mann, 555 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). For these reasons, we reverse the equitable distribution 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…
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
- Clemson v. Cathleen Carol Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Harris v. Romenita Harris, 498 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Shuler v. Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 551 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Rezner v. Rezner, 553 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)