GUILLERMO MULLER, APPELLANT,
v.
JORGELINA BEATRIZ GAETA MULLER, 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 divorce dissolution case, the husband appeals the trial court's award of his interest in the marital home to the wife. The Third District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that lump-sum alimony cannot be used to compensate a spouse for money loaned during the marriage, and remands for reconsideration of child support, alimony, and property distribution issues.
Lump-sum alimony cannot be used as a vehicle to obtain repayment of money advanced by one spouse to another. The trial court erred in awarding the wife the husband's interest in the marital home on this ground, and the award must be reversed and remanded.
“The well-established rule in Florida is that lump-sum alimony cannot be used as a vehicle in which to obtain repayment of money advanced by one spouse to another.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that defeats the trial court's rationale for the award.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring the marriage, the wife loaned money to the husband. In the dissolution proceedings, the trial court awarded the husband's interest in the marit…
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 Distribution Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant (husband), appeals a final judgment of dissolution awarding the husband’s interest in the marital home to the appellee (wife). We reverse and remand.
The trial court awarded the wife the husband’s interest in the marital home to compensate her for money she had loaned the husband during the marriage. Although the final judgment stated the award of the husband’s interest in the home was given pursuant to an equitable distribution of the property, it is apparent from the record that the award was intended as lump-sum alimony.
The well-established rule in Florida is that lump-sum alimony cannot be used as a vehicle in which to obtain repayment of money advanced by one spouse to another. Emery v. Emery, 434 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Rey v. Rey, 279 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), dismissed, 291 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1974); Black v. Black, 247 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Spears v. Spears, 148 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). The trial court therefore erred in awarding the wife the husband’s interest in the marital home on such ground.
Accordingly, the portion of the final judgment appealed from is reversed and remanded. Upon remand the trial court is free, consistent with this opinion, to revisit the issues of child support, alimony, and of equitable distribution of property.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- REY v. REY, 279 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Spears v. Spears, 148 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. Transit Auth. v. McArthur Edwards, 247 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Fin. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Ingerson, 291 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1973)
- Emery v. Emery, 434 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)