MICHAEL A. MIULLI, APPELLANT,
v.
JENNIFER LYNN MIULLI, 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 held that lump sum alimony awarded for equitable distribution is permissible, but not when awarded solely as support in a short-term marriage. The requirement for life insurance to secure the alimony was reversed.
The Husband appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, primarily concerning the valuation and distribution of marital property and debts.…
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 Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The Husband, Michael A. Miulli, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The primary issues at the final hearing were the valuation and distribution of marital property and marital debts. We affirm the trial court on all issues except two.
Both issues concern the trial court’s award of lump sum alimony to the Wife, Jennifer Lynn Miulli. “Lump sum alimony may be awarded as either support or equitable distribution.” Young v. Young, 677 So. 2d 1301, 1304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The trial court awarded the Wife lump sum alimony for the purpose of achieving equitable distribution. To the extent that the lump sum alimony award in this case was for support, it was error.1
The Wife’s counsel concedes the trial court erred in ordering life insurance to be maintained by the Husband as security for the lump sum alimony obligation. This issue was neither pleaded nor litigated by consent. See Lowe v. Lowe, 789 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In addition, there was no evidence or findings as to the Husband’s insurability, the cost of the proposed insurance, or the Husband’s ability to afford such insurance. See Scalabroni v. Scalabroni, 807 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Accordingly, the lump sum alimony award is affirmed as a vehicle to achieve equitable distribution but not as support. In addition, the provision directing the Husband to secure the lump sum alimony award with life insurance is reversed. All other matters raised but not addressed in this opinion are affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALTENBERND and COVINGTON, JJ., concur. . Support alimony was not appropriate as the length of the marriage was only three years.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pipitone v. Pipitone, 23 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ding that lump sum alimony is enforceable by contempt if intended for support rather than property settlement). Equitable Distribution or Support Lump sum alimony may provide for equitable distribution of property or for support. Miulli v. Miulli, 832 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Noe v. Noe, 431 So. 2d 657, 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The remedies available to enforce payment depend on the characterization of the alimony. “Alimony payments [for support], even though they be lump sum payable in installments, a…
-
Vigo v. Vigo, 15 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ustification for such an award and the ability of the paying spouse to make the payment “without substantially endangering his or her economic status.’ ”) (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980)); see also Miulli v. Miulli, 832 So. 2d 963, 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that lump sum alimony may be awarded “for the purpose of achieving equitable distribution”). [*623] B. Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion by Awarding Permanent Periodic Alimony to the Wife and Whether the…
-
Gardiner v. Gardiner, 207 So. 3d 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…support the award under either theory, we agree. Lump sum alimony may be awarded either for spousal support or as part of an equitable distribution of marital property. Pipitone v. Pipitone, 23 So. 3d 131, 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Miulli v. Miulli, 832 So. 2d 963, 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “[W]here a trial court makes an award of lump sum alimony, it shall first determine whether the award is necessary for support or to effect an equitable distribution of marital property.” Guida v. Guida, 870 So. 2d 222, 224…
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
- Young v. Martine Denn Young, 677 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Lowe v. Lowe, 789 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Eraldo L. Scalabroni v. Scalabroni, 807 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)