LOIS MARIE HAPP MCAVOY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
KENNETH HENRY MCAVOY, JR., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution and attorney's fees judgment in most respects but remanded on four specific issues: the need for a payment schedule for lump sum payments, determination of H.A.M. Properties obligations, valuation of a coin collection, and an award of attorney's fees to the former wife based on the substantial income disparity between the parties.
The court affirmed the trial judgment overall but remanded four issues: (1) the trial court must include a specific payment schedule for the lump sum distribution; (2) the trial court must make a final determination of the parties' obligations regarding H.A.M. Properties rather than reserving jurisdiction; (3) the trial court must redetermine the coin collection's valuation as the $10,000 figure was unsupported by evidence; and (4) the trial court must award the Former Wife a contribution toward attorney's fees from the Former Husband based on the income disparity and his receipt of all income-producing assets.
[1] A lump sum equitable distribution award must include a specific payment schedule to facilitate enforcement.
[2] Parties are entitled to a final distribution of assets and liabilities at the time of dissolution, and jurisdiction should not be reserved for future determination of unk…
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“Although the Former Husband concedes that he understood that the payments were to be made on a monthly basis, in order to enable the Former Wife to enforce this aspect of the final judgment, on remand, the court shall include a specific payment schedule in its order.”
Establishes that even when both parties understand payment terms, a specific payment schedule must be included in the judgment to ensure enforceability.
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 divorced by final judgment. The trial court awarded the Former Wife $59,805 in lump sum equitable distribution without specifying a p…
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 Income Disparity cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
The issues raised in this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution involve equitable distribution and attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s final judgment with the exception of the following:
1. The trial court awarded the Former Wife $59,805 in lump sum equitable distribution but failed to provide a payment schedule. Athough the Former Husband concedes that he understood that the payments were to be made on a monthly basis, in order to enable the Former Wife to enforce this aspect of the final judgment, on remand, the court shall include a specific payment schedule in its order. 2. The trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the equitable distribution of any asset or liability which might develop regarding the H.A.M. Properties. However, the parties are entitled to a final distribution of their assets and liabilities at the time of dissolution. Therefore, we remand this issue for a determination of the parties’ obligations, if any, regarding H.A.M. Properties.
3. The trial court assigned a value of $10,000 to a coin collection retained by the Former Wife. We find no evidence in the record to support this valuation and remand for a determination of the collection’s value and an adjustment of the equitable distribution if necessary.
4. The trial court ordered each party to bear their own attorney’s fees. Given the disparity in incomes (the Former Husband’s annual income is over $100,000; the Former Wife’s is $28,000) and the fact that the Former Husband received all of the parties’ income-producing assets, the Former Husband should contribute to the Wife’s attorney’s fees. On remand, the trial court shall determine the amount of this contribution.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PETERSON, C.J., and W. SHARP, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeSANTIS v. DeSANTIS, 714 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…the wife’s pension plan is to create an interest in that asset which the final judgment extinguished. That is tantamount to a modification of the final adjudication of property rights in a divorce case, which is not permitted. See McAvoy v. McAvoy, 662 So. 2d 744, 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Once the final judgment is entered, there are no longer marital property rights, only individual property rights. The remedies available for enforcement of those provisions of the final judgment with regard to the equitable…
-
Norman v. Norman, 939 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ntitlement to attorney’s fees. Courts have found no abuse of discretion in awarding fees to a wife when the trial court has awarded the principal income-producing asset to the husband and the wife’s principal income is alimony. See McAvoy v. McAvoy, 662 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Reich v. Reich, 652 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court did err, however, by failing to make the requisite findings as to the amount of fees. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. [*242] 1985…
-
Banton v. Parker-Banton, 756 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e parties). When reversible error occurs with regard to valuation or distribution, the entire distribution scheme must be reversed and remanded to allow the trial court to ensure both parties receive equity and justice. See, e.g., McAvoy v. McAvoy, 662 So. 2d 744, 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The trial court is also free to reconsider any requests for alimony since, in some instances, an award of alimony may be used to balance inequities resulting from property disposition in the final judgment. See Hamlet v. Ha…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence