MICHAEL A. HARDY, FORMER HUSBAND
v.
KIMBERLY HARDY, FORMER WIFE
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding all marital assets to the former wife and freezing the former husband's entire stock ownership plan as security for meaningful financial relief when the former husband is an unemployed domestic abuser who subsequently commits arson by burning the marital home.
[1] A trial court's decision to reject part of a magistrate's recommendation is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] A trial court has discretion to freeze an entire employee stock ownership plan to protect a party's rights to meaningful financial relief when the other party has committ…
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“After the magistrate heard the issues and before the trial judge entered final judgment, Former Husband repeatedly violated a domestic-violence injunction and burned the marital home to the ground. He is now serving a 20-year prison sentence for arson, burglary, and aggravated stalking.”
Court's factual basis for upholding the trial court's deviation from magistrate's recommendation
Former Husband, an unemployed alcoholic with a history of domestic violence who failed to support his family for over a year, challenged a divorce jud…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D17-277 _____________________________
MICHAEL A. HARDY, Former Husband,
Appellant,
v. KIMBERLY HARDY, Former Wife,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. Robert M. Foster, Judge.
September 9, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Former Husband challenges two provisions of the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Former Wife: the provision awarding Former Wife all marital assets despite a magistrate’s recommendation to divide the assets evenly, and the provision freezing his entire employee stock ownership plan and trust despite awarding Former Wife only half of it. We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s decision to reject part of the magistrate’s recommendation. Davis v. Lopez-Davis, 162 So. 3d 19, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Finding none, and finding the trial court’s judgment supported by competent, substantial evidence, we affirm.
2
The unique facts of this case support the trial court’s exercise of discretion. The evidence showed that Former Husband was an unemployed alcoholic with a history of domestic violence, who had not supported his family for over a year and lacked any means to do so. After the magistrate heard the issues and before the trial judge entered final judgment, Former Husband repeatedly violated a domestic-violence injunction and burned the marital home to the ground. He is now serving a 20-year prison sentence for arson, burglary, and aggravated stalking. After becoming aware of Former Husband’s crimes, the trial court was within its discretion to freeze the entire stock ownership plan to protect Former Wife’s rights to meaningful financial relief, including making up for the loss of the marital home. See Johnson v. Ferguson, 383 So. 2d 715, 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (noting Fla. R. App. P. 9.600(c) authorizes entry of orders necessary to protect party’s rights pending appeal). Given the present state of facts, presumably Former Wife will pursue further proceedings on remand.
AFFIRMED.
RAY, C.J., and KELSEY and JAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
John M. Merrett, Jacksonville, for Appellant. William Mallory Kent of Kent & McFarland, Jacksonville, for Appellee.