MARIA DEL ROSARIO LOZANO-CICCIA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAIME LOZANO, 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 divorce appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dissolution of a 2.5-year marriage, denial of alimony, and equitable distribution of marital assets between two physicians. However, the court reversed the attorney's fees award, holding that the husband must pay the wife's full attorney's fees rather than only half, based on the substantial disparity in their incomes and earning abilities.
The court affirmed the denial of alimony and the equitable distribution of marital assets, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. However, the court reversed the partial award of attorney's fees, holding that the husband must pay the wife's full attorney's fees of $10,000 based on the substantial disparity in the parties' incomes and earning capacities.
[1] A trial court may deny alimony when a spouse is found to be capable of self-support and has voluntarily elected not to seek employment.
[2] In distributing marital assets, a trial court may consider factors such as the length of the marriage, a spouse's contribution to the marriage, and the other spouse's con…
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 specifically found the wife well able to support herself, but also found that she had voluntarily elected not to find employment”
Establishes the basis for denying alimony despite the husband's superior income
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaria del Rosario Lozano-Ciccia and Jaime Lozano were married for two and one-half years. The husband is a gainfully employed Florida physician, while…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Maria del Rosario Lozano-Cic-cia, seeks review of two orders, one, the final judgment dissolving her two and one-half year marriage to appellee, Jaime Loza-no, the other, the order determining and awarding fees and costs. We affirm the final judgment of dissolution. As to the order awarding fees and costs, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.
First, we find no error in either the trial court’s denial of alimony or its distribution of marital assets. While the husband is a gainfully employed Florida physician, the wife is also a physician, in her native country of Peru, and was found to have a number of skills marketable in this country. The trial court specifically found the wife well able to support herself, but also found that she had voluntarily elected not to find employment. See Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Vena v. Vena, 556 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Looking to the wife’s claim that she received less than her fair share of the marital assets, the trial court made specific findings of fact regarding the wife’s lack of contribution to the marriage, the short term nature of the marriage, and the husband’s contribution to the wife’s career development, all of which were appropriate considerations under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991). Here, the value of the marital home and the pension fund were shared equally between the parties. The husband retained the bulk of the estimated and hotly disputed value of a business venture, which was likely to produce several years of earnings, but which had required no initial investment on the couplers part. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s distribution of these assets. See Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 597 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (equitable distribution of marital assets is presumptively equal, but may be varied if there is good reason to do so).
Finally, the trial court, in accord with the evidence presented, determined wife’s reasonable attorney’s fees to be $10,-000 and ordered the husband to pay one-half that sum. Additionally, the court ordered the husband responsible for the costs of the litigation. In light of the great disparity in the couple’s incomes, we find the trial court erred in not ordering the husband to pay wife’s attorney’s fees in full. The husband’s longtime record of income production and his earning ability were substantially superior to those of the wife. Whitesides v. Whitesides, 585 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Lochridge v. Lochridge, 526 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Blackburn v. Blackburn, 513 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment dissolving the marriage, denying alimony, and equitably distributing the marital assets. As to the order on fees and costs, we reverse in part, and remand with instructions that husband be ordered to pay wife’s attorney’s fees in the full. The balance of that order is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SOL v. SOL, 656 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…pouse to pay the entirety of the payee spouse’s attorney’s fees. These cases have typically involved a large disparity in income between the payor and payee spouse. See Leonard v. Leonard, 613 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Lozano-Ciccia v. Lozano, 599 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); LaHuis v. LaHuis, 590 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Garcia v. Garcia, 570 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Zakarin v. Zakarin, 565 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Heller v. Kuvin, 49…
-
Cardella-Navarro v. Navarro, 992 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…f of FYI’s business debt to the wife, amounting to approximately $4,694,000. This Court has held that the “equitable distribution of marital assets is presumptively equal, but may be varied if there is good reason to do so.” Lozano-Ciccia v. Lozano, 599 So. 2d 718, 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Here, the record reflects that the husband controlled FYI, that the wife was not involved in the business, and that most of the business debt arose after the parties separated. The Second District Court of Appeal held in Yat…
-
Dinsmore v. Dixie A. Dinsmore, 623 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…state reasons justifying the challenged award in light of the evidence of the former husband’s superior income and the former wife’s lack of sufficient assets (other than income from alimony payments) to pay attorney’s fees. Lozano-Ciccia v. Lozano, 599 So. 2d 718 (Fla.3d DCA 1992) (given [*639] great disparity in parties’ incomes, trial court reversibly erred in ordering husband to pay only one-half rather than entire amount of wife’s attorney’s fees); Askegard v. Askegard, 584 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991);…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blackburn v. Anne E. Blackburn, 513 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 597 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Lochridge v. Lochridge, 526 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Vena v. Vena, 556 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- In the Interest of T.S., 585 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Whitesides v. Whitesides, 585 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)