GEORGE MICHAEL MORGAN, RICHARD VERNON MORGAN, JANICE MORGAN, AND RICHARD VERNON MORGAN, JR., APPELLANTS,
v.
CHERYL ANN MORGAN, 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.
Husband George Michael Morgan and other family members with property interests in a farming partnership appealed a dissolution of marriage judgment involving equitable distribution of marital assets, spousal and child support, and attorney's fees. The court affirmed the asset distribution and support awards but reversed the trial court's imposition of an equitable lien on partnership farming equipment, finding such a lien constitutes an impermissible levy on partnership assets for an individual partner's debt.
The court affirmed the trial court's awards regarding equitable distribution of marital assets, spousal support, child support, and attorney's fees, as the husband failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. However, the court reversed the imposition of the equitable lien on partnership farming equipment, finding it constitutes a legally impermissible levy on partnership assets for the debt of an individual partner.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in equitable distribution, spousal support, child support, or attorney's fees awards if the challenging party fails to demonst…
[2] A lien imposed against partnership assets to secure the individual debt of a partner is legally impermissible.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 husband has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in making these awards”
Establishes the standard of review for equitable distribution awards in dissolution cases and the outcome regarding asset division and support.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Michael Morgan sought dissolution of marriage from Cheryl Ann Morgan. The trial court entered a final judgment involving equitable distribution…
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 Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband, George Michael Morgan, challenges certain provisions of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered in favor of the wife, Cheryl Ann Morgan, involving the equitable distribution of marital assets and the amounts awarded for spousal and child support, as well as for attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm because the husband has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in making these awards. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
The other appellants, Richard Vernon Morgan, Janice Morgan, and Richard Vernon Morgan, Jr., were parties below because of their ownership in various property interests, including a family farming partnership, subject to the trial court’s scheme of equitable distribution. They join the husband in appealing that aspect of the final judgment which imposed an equitable lien against all of the partnership’s farming equipment to secure payment of the wife’s one-third interest in that equipment which the trial court awarded her under the equitable distribution plan. We reverse the imposition of this lien because it constitutes a legally impermissible levy on partnership assets for the debt of an individual partner. See § 620.68, Fla.Stat. (1993); Angle v. Angle, 506 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 513 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1987). Cf Burdick v. Burdick, 601 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (trial court erred in imposing lien in favor of wife on property husband owned jointly with daughter from another marriage). Accordingly, we strike this provision from the final judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and equitable lien provision stricken.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Angle v. Angle, 506 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Burdick v. Burton E. Burdick, Burton E. Burdick, P.A., 601 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)