ROBERT E. PIKE, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA PIKE, 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 marital dissolution appeal, the husband challenges the trial court's award of his interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony, rehabilitative alimony of $750/month, and attorney's fees. The Florida appellate court reversed the award of the marital home, finding it created an obvious imbalance in asset distribution, and remanded for re-evaluation of alimony and attorney's fees awards.
The court reversed the award of the husband's interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony, making the parties tenants in common instead, with the wife retaining use and occupancy until the minor child reaches majority or she remarries. The case was remanded for the trial court to re-evaluate and equitably modify the alimony and attorney's fees awards in light of this substantial alteration.
[1] A trial court's award of a husband's interest in the marital home to the wife as lump sum alimony may be reversed when it creates a significant financial imbalance.
[2] Upon reversal of a lump sum alimony award of the marital home, parties may become tenants in common of the property.
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 obvious imbalance was created mainly by the trial court's award to the wife of the husband's interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony”
Establishes the court's finding that the trial court's award of the marital home to the wife as alimony created an inequitable asset distribution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert and Virginia Pike were married 22 years with four children, one still a minor. The husband is a 56-year-old physician with a net yearly income …
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 Tenancy In Common cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert E. Pike, husband, seeks review of the financial provisions of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage from his wife, Virginia T. Pike.
At the time of the petition for dissolution the parties were married twenty-two years, had four children, only one of whom is still a minor and living with the wife. The husband is a practicing physician, fifty-six years of age, and the wife age forty-three, is trained and qualified as a registered nurse but is not employed. In 1974, the husband, after income tax, had a net yearly income of approximately $27,000. He owns a $5,000 boat and stocks valued at $12,000. Both the husband and wife own their respective automobiles and jointly own the marital home of the net value of approximately $200,000.
On appeal the husband argues as error the trial court’s award of the husband’s interest in the marital home to the wife as lump sum alimony and the award of rehabilitative alimony to the wife of $750 per month for a period of thirty-six months. The husband also assigns as error the court’s judgment that the husband pay the wife’s attorneys fees. The facts as disclosed by the record show that, irrespective of payment by the husband of rehabilitative alimony of $750 per month, plus $400 per month as child support which leaves him with net income of about $1,000 per month before taxes the husband will have assets of about $21,000 and the wife assets of about $202,000.
In our opinion, the obvious imbalance was created mainly by the trial court’s award to the wife of the husband’s interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court awarding the husband’s interest in the marital home to the wife, the effect of which is that husband and wife will be tenants in common of the property. In such modified judgment, the wife shall have the right to the use and occupancy of the home until the minor child attains his majority or the wife remarries, whichever event occurs first.
In view of the substantial alteration of the trial court’s judgment herein appealed, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to re-evaluate and equitably modify or change, if appropriate, the alimony award (rehabilitative, lump sum or permanent periodic) as well as the award of attorneys fees.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cobb v. Edythe Cobb, 538 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…alimony award was arbitrary and must be reversed. Satanonchai v. Satanonchai, 522 So. 2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Harris v. Harris, 498 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bullard v. Bullard, 413 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Pike v. Pike, 332 So. 2d 147, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Second, the child support award cannot stand because (a) no evidence was adduced below to establish the needs of the parties’ minor child, and (b) the award places the entire burden of child support on the former husband,…