JUDITH MAE RIZER N/K/A JUDITH MAE PASSMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT H. RIZER, 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 wife challenged the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets and equalization payment. The appellate court affirmed most of the dissolution judgment but reversed the equitable distribution and equalization payment provisions due to mathematical errors and the wife's inability to pay the ordered monthly installments.
The equitable distribution and equalization payment were improper and must be reversed and remanded. The distribution contained mathematical errors, with the wife receiving approximately $1700 more than her equal share while being ordered to pay nearly twice that amount in equalization. Additionally, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the wife to pay $300 monthly when her income of $1200 with reasonable expenses left her unable to pay.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in equitable distribution when it fails to accurately account for marital assets and liabilities, resulting in an unequal division.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion in ordering an equalization payment that is beyond a party's ability to pay, considering their income and expenses.
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 wife received approximately $1700 more than her share, yet she was ordered to pay the husband nearly twice that amount to equalize.”
Establishes the mathematical error in the equitable distribution that was grounds for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court identified $16,063.42 in marital assets and benefits to be equally divided, resulting in each party receiving $8,031.72. The court cre…
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 Marital Liabilities cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Judith Mae Rizer n/k/a Judith Mae Pass-more (wife) raises four issues in her appeal from the final judgment of dissolution. We affirm except for the equitable distribution and the equalization payment. As to these matters only, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
The trial court properly attempted an equal division of the marital assets and liabilities. The final judgment determined there were $16,063.42 in benefits (which resulted from joint debts having been paid by one of the parties) and assets to be equally divided. An equal division would result in each of the parties receiving $8,031.72 in assets and benefits. The final judgment credited the wife with $9,733.85 in assets and benefits, and the husband with $4,617.53. Equalization of $3,414.18 was ordered to bring the husband’s total to the $8,031.72 figure.
Unfortunately, these figures do not balance. The wife received approximately $1700 more than her share, yet she was ordered to pay the husband nearly twice that amount to equalize. Also, the totals credited to the husband and "wife are about $1700 less than the total amount of assets and benefits the court found should be distributed. This discrepancy appears to have occurred because one of the marital assets was not fully distributed; specifically, the principal reduction on a lot owned by the husband. The trial court credited the husband with only half the value of the principal reduction when, in fact, the-husband was the recipient of the entire amount.
Finally, even if the equalization amount had been correct, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the wife to pay $300 per month to accomplish equalization of the equitable distribution. The wife had a monthly income of $1200 and reasonable expenses which slightly exceeded her income. The monthly payment was beyond her ability to pay at the time of the order and should be reconsidered upon remand. See Barclay v. Barclay, 554 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution and equalization payments and remand for further proceedings. In all other respects, we affirm.
THREADGILL, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.