H. CARL VANDERVOORT, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET JEAN VANDERVOORT, 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 this divorce appeal, the former husband challenges a $150,000 lump sum alimony award to his ex-wife. The court affirmed the award, holding that trial judges have broad discretion in determining equitable alimony arrangements under Florida law, including awarding lump sum or partial lump sum alimony.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding lump sum alimony. Trial judges have wide discretion to determine what alimony arrangement is most equitable under Florida law, and lump sum alimony awards are authorized by statute. Additionally, partial or piecemeal lump sum alimony awards, while not ideal practice, are not illegal.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion to determine equitable alimony arrangements based on the parties' circumstances and the nature of the case.
[2] Florida Statute § 61.08 permits a court to award permanent alimony in the form of periodic payments, a lump sum, or both.
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“The trial judge had wide discretion, as trier of the facts, to determine what alimony arrangement would be most equitable. He had before him the financial statements of both parties, and the record of the parties' relationship.”
Establishes the broad discretion trial courts have in determining equitable alimony awards under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant and appellee were in a bitter property dispute arising from the dissolution of their marriage. The trial court awarded the former wife $…
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 Temporary Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, who is the former husband of the appellee, appeals an award to the former wife of the sum of $150,000 as lump sum alimony. Other appeals stemming from this bitter property controversy growing out of dissolution of marriage are reported at Fla.App., 265 So. 2d 77 and Fla.App., 275 So. 2d 617.
The burden of appellant’s argument is that an award of lump sum alimony was completely uncalled for because the evidence did not meet the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of Florida in Yandell v. Yandell, Fla. 1949, 39 So. 2d 554. We hold that this argument is not sufficient in view of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bosem v. Bosem, Fla. 1973, 279 So. 2d 863 where the Supreme Court in quashing this District Court of Appeal pointed out:
“First, the District Court found that the award of $100,000 in the form of lump sum alimony to Mrs. Bosem in addition to substantial periodic alimony represented an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. We cannot agree. Fla.Stat. § 61.08, F.S.A. (1969), provides:
‘In every judgment of divorce in an action by the wife, the court shall make such orders about maintenance, alimony and suit money of the wife, or any allowance to be made to her, and if any, the security to be given therefor, as from the circumstances of the parties and nature of the case is equitable. . . In any award of permanent alimony the court has jurisdiction to order periodic payments or payment in lump sum or both.’
“The trial judge had wide discretion, as trier of the facts, to determine what alimony arrangement would be most equitable. He had before him the financial statements of both parties, and the record of the parties’ relationship.” 279 So. 2d 864.
In addition, the appellant urges that the trial court having awarded the appellee-wife the husband’s interest in the former residence of the parties thereby exhausted the statutory provision for lump sum alimony and that the court could not thereafter grant an award which was in effect partial lump sum alimony. While the award of piecemeal alimony is certainly not the best practice, we know of no provision which makes such awards illegal. The partial lump sum alimony to the wife of the husband’s interest in the former marital residence of the parties was justified in this case by the fact that the husband has, during the long and bitter litigation, absented himself from the State of Florida and has been almost continuously under orders holding him in contempt of court for his failure to pay temporary alimony and to obey orders to account.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)…ive use of such alimony awards has been approved recently by this Court in McDonald v. McDonald, 368 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1979), and by the Third District Court of Appeal. See Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 300 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Although the award of lump sum alimony is not dependent upon a finding of a prior vested right, there does arise upon the entry of a final judgment of a lump sum award a vested right which is neither terminable upon a spouse’s r…
-
Tedford J. Cann v. Margery M. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…ced wife’s remarriage (Horne v. Horne, Fla.App. 2nd 1974, 289 So. 2d 39). Lump sum alimony may consist not only of money, but also or in lieu thereof, real or personal property, such as a marital home. (Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, Fla.App. 3rd 1974, 300 So. 2d 694.) Regardless of what form it takes, “ * * * Lump sum alimony is justified only where it serves a reasonable purpose, such as rehabilitation, or where the marriage’s duration or the parties’ financial position would make such an award advantageous to…
-
Bird v. Bird, 385 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…tive use of such alimony awards has been approved recently by this Court in McDonald v. McDonald, 368 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1979), and by the Third District Court of Appeal. See Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 300 So. 2d 694 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). 382 So. 2d 1201. In the case at bar the trial court found, and the record supports, that the wife had a special equity in the husband’s taxi business. This interest was awarded to the husband. Next, the trial court awarded the hu…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Bosem v. Arie Lionel Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1973)
- Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 265 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 275 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Aura M. Colon v. Hialeah-Miami Springs First State Bank, 275 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)