JACK L. KUHARSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHY L. KUHARSKY, 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 this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of lump-sum alimony to the wife through sale proceeds of the marital residence, but reversed and remanded portions concerning reimbursement of medical therapist bills and attorney's fees, requiring the trial court to conduct further factual determinations on those issues.
The court affirmed the award of one-half of the residence sale proceeds as lump-sum alimony where the wife made extraordinary contributions to the marriage and the husband had the ability to pay without endangering his economic status. The court reversed the requirement for reimbursement of pre-judgment medical therapist bills, requiring the trial court to determine whether those expenditures were reasonable and necessary. The court also reversed the attorney's fees award and directed an evidentiary hearing on entitlement and amount.
[1] Distribution of non-marital assets may be used to effect lump-sum alimony where there is justification for the award and the payor has the ability to meet the award witho…
[2] An award of lump-sum alimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
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“distribution of non-marital assets may be used to effect lump-sum alimony”
Establishes the principle that non-marital property can be distributed to satisfy a lump-sum alimony award when justified and the payor has ability to pay.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were formerly married. The husband acquired the marital residence before the marriage. The trial court found the residence had become a ma…
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 Nonmarital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
In this appeal from an Amended Final Judgment of dissolution of marriage the former husband, appellant, raises three issues.
The trial court made a specific finding that the marital residence, acquired by the husband before the marriage, became a marital asset. As part of the scheme of equitable distribution the court ordered the residence sold and awarded to the wife a one-half interest in the proceeds. The record suggests that this award is in fact an award of lump-sum alimony.
In considering an award of lump-sum alimony, the standard of review is abuse of discretion. Poitier v. Poitier, 458 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). “If a reasonable person could have concluded as did the trial court, there has been no abuse of discretion.” Thompson v. Thompson, 546 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In view of the wife’s extraordinary contributions to the financial aspect of the marriage, we find the award of lump-sum alimony appropriate. This determination and our analysis of the issue does not depend upon the correctness of the trial court’s characterization of the residence as a marital asset. In fact, its character is irrelevant to our inquiry on this issue. This is so because where there is justification for an award of lump-sum alimony, as here, and where the husband has the ability to meet the award without substantially endangering his own economic status, as here, distribution of non-marital assets may be used to effect lump-sum alimony. Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1985); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949). We affirm the award of one-half of the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence as lump-sum alimony.
The amended final judgment also required the husband to pay “one half of all medical therapist bills incurred, past and future, by the wife.” As to such bills incurred subsequent to the entry of the final judgment, the wife has waived her right to reimbursement. With reference to such bills incurred prior to entry of judgment, we reverse and remand to permit the trial court to make a determination as to whether those expenditures were reasonable and necessary. Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 425 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Finally, we reverse that aspect of the Amended Final Judgment holding that the wife is in need and the husband has the ability to pay sixty percent of the wife’s attorney’s fees. Such an award must be based upon evidence in the record. On remand, the trial court is directed to hold an evidentiary hearing on entitlement as well as the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Ashourian v. Ashourian, 519 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Dean Witter & Co. v. Polisar, 443 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
DOWNEY, J., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armstrong v. Faye Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…‘reasonable and necessary’ and the retention of jurisdiction by the trial court provides an adequate limitation of those expenses and a forum for relief for either of the parties should the circumstances require.” Id. at 566);4 Kuharsky v. Kuharsky, 582 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA1991); Black v. Black, 490 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA1986). This award is reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to determine whether the past expenditures appellee claims were reasonable and necessary, to place appropr…
-
Schlafke v. Schlafke, 755 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…he amount of the permanent periodic alimony award.- We also hold that the trial court erred in awarding the former wife $15,-000.00 in attorney’s fees. An award of attorney’s fees must be based upon evidence in the record. See Kuharsky v. Kuharsky, 582 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In this case, the trial court awarded the former wife attorney’s fees without hearing testimony or receiving evidence with respect to her entitlement to or the amount of attorney’s fees, and without finding that the former husba…
-
Hannon v. Lorain A. Hannon, 740 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…total net income does not meet her expenses and she has no other income or source of support. The Husband clearly has the ability to meet an award of lump sum alimony without substantially endangering his own economic status. Kuharsky v. Kuharsky, 582 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). F. The Husband shall pay to the Wife in and for lump sum alimony the amount of $92,736 (her monthly deficit times 12 times 4 years) which said payment shall be made on or before August 1,1998.” In addition, the trial judge gav…
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)
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1985)
- Mahmoud Ashourian v. Ashourian, 519 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Thompson v. Tobitha Thompson, 546 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Poitier v. Poitier, 458 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Brandenburg v. Bettye J. Brandenburg, 425 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Dean Witter & Co., Inc. v. Polisar, 443 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)