DEBORAH K. COMBS, CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM S. COMBS, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of an equitable lien in company stock to the former wife, finding it impractical and effectively worthless because it gave the former husband indefinite control over when payment would occur. The court affirmed all other aspects of the judgment and remanded for the trial court to set a reasonable payment deadline.
The court held that the equitable lien award was an abuse of discretion because it was for all practical purposes worthless and placed in the husband's hands the decision of when, if ever, the wife would be paid. The judgment was reversed and remanded for the trial court to set a reasonable deadline for payment, with discretion to determine whether payment should be in a lump sum or installments.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding an equitable lien on stock to a party when the award effectively places the decision of payment entirely within the discre…
[2] A trial court may determine whether a stock award is paid in a lump sum or in installments.
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 award of an equitable lien in the company's stock to her is for all practical purposes worthless. The effect of the judgment is to place in the hands of the husband the decision of when, if ever, she will be paid the amount ordered.”
Establishes why the trial court's judgment was an abuse of discretion—the indefinite lien gave the husband control over payment timing and rendered the award meaningless.
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 granted the former wife (Deborah) an equitable lien representing 20% of the stock of Combs Lumber & Supply, Inc., valued at $70,000. T…
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 Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In her appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, Deborah K. Combs, the former wife, raises five issues, and the former husband, William S. Combs, brings up three issues in his cross-appeal. We reverse in part only the issue in the former wife’s appeal claiming that the lower court abused its discretion by the manner in which it awarded to her a portion of the stock of Combs Lumber & Supply, Inc. Finding no abuse of discretion as to all of the remaining points in both the appeal and cross-appeal, we affirm them without further discussion.
We agree that the trial court erred by directing an indefinite delay in the transfer of the wife’s share in the stock of Combs Lumber & Supply, Inc., to her. The final judgment provided in part:
The Wife is hereby granted an equitable lien in the amount of twenty (20%) of stock, which 20% has a current value of $70,000. The Husband, at his election, may pay the Wife $70,000. If he fails to pay said $70,000 to the Wife within ninety (90) days of the date of this Final Judgment, the Wife will continue to retain an equitable lien on 20% of the Husband’s stock such that should the stock of the corporation be sold in the future, the Wife shall be entitled to 20% of the net proceeds of that sale.
As the former wife correctly points out, the award of an equitable lien in the company’s stock to her is for all practical purposes worthless. The effect of the judgment is to place in the hands of the husband the decision of when, if ever, she will be paid the amount ordered. Accordingly, this portion of the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the lower court to ascertain a reasonable date from the entry of the judgment when said amount shall be paid. The determination of whether it be paid in one lump sum or in installments is a matter within the court’s discretion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ERVIN, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.