A. DURWOOD SIMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA SIMPSON, 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.
The court affirmed the award of the marital residence to the former wife as lump sum alimony but reversed the additional periodic alimony award and contempt finding as inequitable.
A trial court may award the marital residence as lump sum alimony to a former wife when justified by the parties' circumstances, but cannot impose additional periodic alimony that creates inequitable distribution favoring the former wife.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage, equitable distribution of assets requires that a former wife not receive both a marital residence as lump sum alimony and additional periodi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded the former wife the marital residence plus a significant portion of the husband's monthly income…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant A. Durwood Simpson, the former husband, appeals the final order in a dissolution of marriage action. According to the final judgment, the former wife received the marital residence in addition to a significant portion of the husband’s monthly income. The former husband claims that the trial court’s distribution of the marital assets inequitably favored appellee Sandra Simpson, the former wife. The former husband also appeals the court order holding him in contempt for failure to pay the allegedly inequitable periodic alimony.
We affirm the award of the marital residence to the former wife as lump sum alimony. Such an award is justified by the parties’ agreement that the former wife cannot rely on the former husband to meet monthly financial obligations to her. We reverse, however, the additional award of periodic alimony and the holding of the former husband in contempt for failure to make those payments, finding that the award creates an inequity in favor of the former wife. This amended arrangement creates the required equitable distribution of assets between the parties. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Griffiths v. Griffiths, 563 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1981).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Smith, 971 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…marriage proceedings, Former Husband claimed the marital residence was his separate, nonmarital property. Former Wife asked the trial court to award Former Husband’s share of the marital residence to her as lump-sum alimony. See Simpson v. Simpson, 678 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming award of marital residence to former wife as lump-sum alimony). Her acknowledgment that Former Husband’s name is on the title, and that he paid the mortgage and other major expenses relating to the residence during the…
-
Sellers v. Sellers, 68 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…o meet her monthly expenses, let alone maintain the standard of [*351] living established during the marriage.1 Lump Sum Alimony The marital home may be awarded as lump sum support alimony or through equitable distribution. See Simpson v. Simpson, 678 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Lump sum alimony for support requires a showing of need on the part of the recipient spouse, an ability to pay on the part of the payor spouse, and a justification for the payment. See Jackson v. Jackson, 507 So. 2d 1160, 1163 (F…
-
Myron J. Newberry v. Newberry, 67 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…one spouse to the other or declares that one spouse has sole interest. See id.; Hadden III v. Cirelli, 675 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). While the final judgment here properly awards the marital home as lump-sum alimony, Simpson v. Simpson, 678 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the final judgment does not include specific language of conveyance of title to the former wife. We therefore remand for [*1125] the trial court to include language in the final judgment specifically requiring conveyance of the m…
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)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Griffiths v. Griffiths, 563 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)