CARL A. JONSSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MYRA J. JONSSON, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the equitable distribution of assets or the award of alimony and attorney's fees.
The husband appealed the final judgment dissolving his marriage, arguing the trial court failed to consider the wife's dissipation of marital assets w…
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 Dissipation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Carl A. Jonsson (husband) appeals the trial court’s final judgment dissolving his marriage to Myra J. Jonsson (wife). He contends the trial court abused its discretion in equitably distributing the parties’ assets and in awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony and a contribution toward her attorney’s fees. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
The gravamen of the husband’s claim of error is that the trial court failed to consider the wife’s conduct with regard to her dissipation of the parties’ marital assets when ordering the husband to pay the wife alimony and a contribution towards her attorney’s fees. He correctly argues that in determining equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fees, the trial court may consider whether one party intentionally dissipated the marital assets or adversely affected the financial status of the other party. See Murray v. Murray, 636 So. 2d 536, 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); see also Adams v. Adams, 677 So. 2d 6, 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); § 61.075(1)(i), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996).
However, the instant record reveals that the trial court did consider the wife’s conduct. In a detailed and thorough final judgment, the trial court distributed $139,832 in marital assets to the husband and $106,729 in marital assets to the wife, explaining:
The wife was responsible for a diminution of the marital assets by her surreptitious misuse of credit. The Court feels it appropriate to reduce her portion of the equitable distribution of the assets and debts due to this fact.
We will not disturb this sound exercise of the trial court’s discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
r*r>r>r> a mnramcinM tt COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dalton Santiago v. Tabatha Santiago, 51 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ations omitted). The trial court was permitted to consider the husband’s intentional waste or depletion of marital assets and other factors to do equity and justice between the parties. See § 61.075(1)(i), (j), Fla. Stat. (2009); Jonsson v. Jonsson, 715 So. 2d 1064, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (“[I]n determining equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fees, the trial court may consider whether one party intentionally dissipated the marital assets or adversely affected the financial status of the other par…
-
David v. David, 58 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…l distribution when the evidence establishes misconduct, such as intentional waste or depletion of marital assets. See Belford v. Belford, 51 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Santiago v. Santiago, 51 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Jonsson v. Jonsson, 715 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). However, disparate earning abilities cannot, without more, justify unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities. Dease v. Dease, 688 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s distributio…
-
Gillian J. Smith v. Smith, 934 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…require the Wife to be responsible for the AT & T MasterCard which the Wife has valued at $11,000.00, the Citi Financial which the Wife has valued at $1,300.00, and ChartWay Visa which the Wife has valued at $940.00. See Jons- [*642] son v. Jonsson, 715 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). An exhibit of credit card statements entered into evidence indicates that about $5,000 was. transferred to the AT & T MasterCard from other credit cards and that the card was used for purchases at department stores. The Wife te…
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)
- Harrell Charles Murray III v. Murray, 636 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Adams v. Adams, 677 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)