RUFUS V. BRADLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH L. BRADLEY, 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 dissolution of marriage case, the husband appeals a final judgment awarding the wife $4,000 in lump sum alimony, $800 in attorney's fees, and $479.20 in costs. The court reverses the lump sum alimony award, finding the husband lacked the financial capacity to pay such a gross award without impairing his economic status, and remands for reconsideration of the entire judgment.
The court reversed the lump sum alimony award because the husband was not financially able to pay the gross amount without endangering his economic status. An award of lump sum alimony should never be made unless the obligor spouse is in a financial position to make such payment without impairing or endangering his economic status.
[1] Lump sum alimony should not be awarded if the paying spouse cannot make the payment without impairing their economic status.
[2] A court cannot determine a spouse's interest in property without adequate pleadings and proof.
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“An award of lump sum alimony should never be made unless the spouse being required to pay is in a financial position to make payment of such gross award without impairing or endangering his economic status.”
States the controlling legal standard for lump sum alimony awards, citing Yandell v. Yandell and Goode v. Goode
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband had been in the used car business but was earning only $500-600 per month buying used cars for dealers on a flat fee basis at the time of …
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 Financial Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The husband in a dissolution of marriage proceeding appeals from those portions of an adverse final judgment awarding the wife $4,000 in lump sum alimony, $800 as attorney’s fees, and $479.20 as costs or suit money.
The record indicates appellant had been in the used car business but that the business had ended, and at the time of trial appellant was engaged in buying used cars for dealers on a flat fee basis that produced an income of between $500 and $600 per month. The record further indicates that (a) appellant has no assets of any consequence; (b) appellant owed the Internal Revenue Service over $700 and had several law suits against him, one for $4,800 which was indefensible; and (c) the appellee is a legal secretary earning approximately $640 per month.
We have searched this record in vain seeking support for the lump sum alimony award of $4,000. The pnly semblance of a basis for the award would be the trial court’s finding that the appellant had sold a Mark IV Continental he bought in his business and he had sold a 1971 Mercury that the appellee used when the parties were living together and that appellant took a good share of their furniture when they separated. But the evidence shows appellee received nothing out of the sale of the Continental, and the court was unable to determine from the proof just what interest the wife was entitled to in the furniture and Mercury automobile. Both the pleadings and proof were inadequate in this respect.
An award of lump sum alimony should never be made unless the spouse being required to pay is in a financial position to make payment of such gross award without impairing or endangering his economic status. Yandell v. Yandell, Fla.1949, 39 So. 2d 554. Goode v. Goode, Fla.1954, 76 So. 2d 794. From the record it appears that the' appellant was not financially able to pay the lump sum award.
Accordingly, we reluctantly find the trial court committed error in awarding lump sum alimony to the appellee and we therefore reverse the final judgment insofar as the lump sum alimony is concerned. However, since other aspects of the final judgment may have been influenced by the lump sum alimony award, we remand the cause to permit the trial court to re-assess the matter and take further testimony if he deems it necessary to properly adjudicate the issues involved.
WALDEN, C. J., concurs.
CROSS, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…he sometimes salutary purpose of putting a definite end to the relationship and “thereby avoid vexatious and possibly endless litigation.” Yandell, supra, 39 So. 2d at 557. Compare also, Goode v. Goode, 76 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1954); Bradley v. Bradley, 327 So. 2d 253 (Fla.4th DCA 1976). The Rosens are both young and Mr. Rosen is in good health. Thus, lump sum is not necessary to provide the wife with vested security against her ex-husband’s possible early demise or disability, as was the case in, for example, St…
-
Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…on March 7, 1980, or on the death of the Husband, whichever occurs first. . Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1978); Bradley v. Bradley, 327 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Ortiz v. Ortiz, 211 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). . Landay v. Landay, 400 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). . Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949). . Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). . Haiberstadt v.…
-
Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ice in a situation such as this where the divorce is an absolute divergence of the lives of the parties, there being no children involved. Yandell v. Yandell, supra, at page 556. Also see Goode v. Goode, 76 So. 2d 794 (Fla.1954); Bradley v. Bradley, 327 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The record before us contains ample, substantial, competent evidence to support the amount of the lump sum alimony award. The wife presented evidence of the husband’s net worth, in excess of $31,000,-000.00; annual salary of $6…
Previewing 3 of 15 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)
- Mirle F. Goode v. Mollye B. Goode, 76 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1954)