CAROL B. HARPER, APPELLANT,
v.
REX E. HARPER, 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 marital property division case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's method of distributing the former wife's equitable interest in a building account asset valued at $250,000. The court held that the wife should receive $125,000 (her one-half share) as a lump sum payment bearing statutory interest, rather than receiving it through 204 monthly installments of $300 that would accrue interest over time.
The court held that the trial court erred in structuring the payment as monthly installments that would accrue interest over 204 months. Instead, the wife should receive $125,000 (representing her one-half interest in the $250,000 building account) as a lump sum payment due within five years, with statutory interest accruing on any unpaid balance, and the amount to constitute a lien on the husband's building interest.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by structuring lump sum alimony payments in a manner that defers the recipient's enjoyment of the awarded asset's value without provid…
[2] When awarding a spouse an equitable distribution interest in a marital asset, the award should reflect the present value of that interest.
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“The trial court abused its discretion by assuming that the wife would allow the monthly payments to be deposited for 204 months accruing interest before she realized her one-half interest in the building account, while the husband's enjoyment of his one-half marital interest is immediate.”
This establishes the fundamental inequity in the trial court's payment structure and the basis for the court's reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarol and Rex Harper divorced. The trial court previously determined that Rex's 36% ownership interest in a building rented by his accounting partners…
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 Lien On Property cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Carol Harper, the former wife, challenges the trial court’s second amended final judgment ordering equitable distribution of marital assets. We have reviewed all of her points on appeal, and we find error only in the trial court’s structuring of the lump sum alimony awarded to her. This is the second appearance of this case before us. Previously, we remanded with directions that the former husband’s 36% ownership interest in a building rented by his accounting partnership be included in the court’s consideration of equitable distribution and not simply as part of a future income stream. Harper v. Harper, 546 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
In an effort to comply with our mandate, the trial court entered a second amended final judgment ordering the husband to pay to the wife $300 per month for 204 months as lump sum alimony to compensate the wife for her interest in the building account asset.
While the trial court was correct in attempting to award the wife the equivalent value of her interest, it erred in the method of imposed payment. The trial judge theorized that if the wife invested the $300 per month at eight per cent interest computed monthly, that at the end of 204 months it would create an asset of $130,000. The trial court abused its discretion by assuming that the wife would allow the monthly payments to be deposited for 204 months accruing interest before she realized her one-half interest in the building account, while the husband’s enjoyment of his one-half marital interest is immediate.
We think the wife should be entitled to the benefit of the award at this time, or to the extent that her entitlement is deferred, the amount of her entitlement should bear interest at the statutory rate. The court determined the building account to be valued at $250,000.
Therefore, we order the trial court to enter a third amended final judgment awarding the wife $125,000 as equivalent present value for her one-half interest in the building account. This $125,000 must be paid on or before five years from October 11, 1990, the date of the second amended final judgment, and interest shall accrue on the debt at the statutory rate. Further, the amount due the wife shall constitute a lien on the husband’s interest in the building.
The trial court may, in its discretion, make provision for prepayments, with interest to cease on the amount of such prepayments.
We reverse the second amended final judgment insofar as it conflicts with this opinion, and affirm on all other points; we direct that a third amended final judgment be entered consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowland v. Debrah Rae Rowland, 868 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…d child support, this award must necessarily be reconsidered. Finally, the Wife is correct that the trial court erred in denying her request on rehearing to direct the equalizer payment on the business to be paid as a lump sum. In Harper v. Harper, 586 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), this court held: We think the wife should be entitled to the benefit of the award at this time, or to the extent that her entitlement is deferred, the amount of her entitlement should bear interest at the statutory rate...…1 / 2
-
Tangie L. Thomas-Nance v. Gayland Marcio Nance, 189 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…the -wife had a right to statutory interest on the equalizing payment' that arose as of the date of the judgment); it must consider whether to impose a lien on the home in favor of the Wife for the amount due from the Husband, see Harper v. Harper, 586 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); and it should retain jurisdiction over any repayment provisions to account for any future change in circumstances. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. LaROSE and LUCAS, JJ., concur.…
-
Shaver v. Shaver, 203 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…at once the equitable distribution scheme is finalized and an equalizer payment ordered, it becomes a party’s vested property. See § 61.075(2), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Rowland v. Rowland, 868 So. 2d 608, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Harper v. Harper, 586 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). But because our reversal will require the trial court to revisit the equitable distribution scheme in its entirety, we do not reach these arguments.…
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
- Harper v. Harper, 546 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)