HOWARD E. MCPHERSON, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
NORMA MCPHERSON, 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 a divorce case where the trial court denied alimony in the final judgment but granted a stay of a cash equitable distribution award pending appeal, the court held that the trial court has authority under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c)(1) to award alimony pending appeal to protect a former spouse's welfare during the appellate process, even when alimony was denied in the final judgment.
The trial court has the power to award alimony pending appeal under Rule 9.600(c)(1) in this case if it finds such relief is necessary to protect the former wife's welfare and rights pending appeal. The rule does not limit the court's power to award alimony pending appeal only to cases where alimony was awarded in the final judgment, and a party's welfare may depend on receiving equitable distribution benefits that have been stayed.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction pending appeal to enter orders awarding alimony or other awards necessary to protect the welfare and rights of any party in a family la…
[2] The trial court's power to award alimony pending appeal is not limited to cases where alimony was awarded in the final judgment.
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“Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c)(1) states that in a family law case the trial court retains jurisdiction to enter orders awarding alimony or "other awards necessary to protect the welfare and rights [of] any party pending appeal." The rule does not limit the court's power to award alimony pending appeal to those cases where alimony has been awarded in the final judgment.”
Establishes the broad scope of trial court authority under the appellate rule to award alimony pending appeal regardless of whether alimony was granted in the final judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court denied the former wife's request for alimony based on an antenuptial agreement, but awarded her $33…
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 Alimony Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
The final judgment of dissolution in this case denied the former wife’s request for alimony, based on a ruling upholding the parties’ antenuptial agreement. The judgment also equitably distributed $1,446,557 of marital property and $450,000 of marital liabilities. Included in the award to the former wife was a condominium valued at $335,000 and a cash payment of $93,201.
The former husband appealed the final judgment and the former wife cross-appealed. The trial court granted the former husband’s motion for stay pending appeal, on the condition that he post a supersedeas bond of $250,000. The former husband posted a bond of $111,841.20. He has moved in the circuit court for clarification concerning his obligation to post the remaining amount.
The former wife moved for alimony pending appeal. The trial court was concerned about its authority to award alimony pending appeal, when alimony was denied in the final judgment. The former wife argued that the stay of the $93,201 cash payment had placed her in a difficult financial position, since that was the only liquid asset she was to receive as a result of the final judgment. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court denied the motion for alimony pending appeal.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c)(1) states that in a family law case the trial court retains jurisdiction to enter orders awarding alimony or “other awards necessary to protect the welfare and rights of any party pending appeal.” The rule does not limit the court’s power to award alimony pending appeal to those cases where alimony has been awarded in the final judgment. A party’s “welfare” may well depend on receiving an equitable distribution. In this case, a significant cash payment has been stayed until the resolution of appeal. The trial court has the power to award alimony pending appeal in this case, if it finds that it is “necessary to protect the welfare and rights” of the former wife pending appeal.
This case is similar to Goodman v. Goodman, 664 So. 2d 975, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), where we recognized that under Rule 9.600(c) a court might properly award temporary alimony pending appeal in an amount in excess of the award in the judgment, where the. alimony award “was ‘inextricably intertwined’ with an equitable distribution, the benefits of which will be delayed until resolution of the appeal.”
In a nutshell, we hold that the trial court has the power to award alimony pending appeal in this case. We do not consider the merits of the former wife’s claim. The order denying temporary alimony pending appeal is reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to consider the merits of the motion under Rule 9.600(c).
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Markin v. Markin, 896 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…as ordered by the trial court to secure his payment of the cash lump sum necessary to effect an equitable distribution, can be credited against the outstanding amount of the lump sum cash payment. This conclusion is based on McPherson v. McPherson, 775 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), in which the final judgment of dissolution awarded the former wife, in part, a cash payment of $93,201. Id. at 973. The former wife requested alimony pending appeal to meet her financial needs because the cash payment was the on…
-
Horowitz v. Horowitz, 139 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…e former husband’s petition. We deny the petition, concluding that, consistent with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c), the trial court has jurisdiction of certain family law matters while an appeal is pending. See McPherson v. McPherson, 775 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Specifically, the trial court may conduct a hearing on the modification petition and issue orders consistent with Rule 9.600(c). It may not, however, enter a final judgment disposing of the modification petition until the appeal…
-
Reidy v. Liudmyla Y. Reidy, 232 So. 3d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…llow temporary alimony necessary to “protect the welfare and rights” of a party; the “rule does not limit the court’s power to award alimony pending appeal to those cases where alimony has been awarded in the final judgment.” McPherson v. McPherson, 775 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). McPherson presents a situation where an equitable distribution award had been stayed, so temporary alimony was necessary to protect the welfare of a party. There, the former wife moved for alimony pending appeal, arguing t…
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
- Goodman v. Goodman, 664 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)