RICHARD D. BIRS, APPELLANT,
v.
GLORIA GROGAN BIRS, 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 case, the trial court awarded the wife the husband's entire interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony. The appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence of the wife's necessity for such an award, but remanded for reconsideration of whether a special equity existed based on the wife's prior contribution of stock to the husband.
The court held that the award of the husband's interest as lump sum alimony was not supported by sufficient evidence of the wife's need and therefore constituted an abuse of discretion. However, the court remanded for consideration of whether the wife had a special equity in the husband's interest based on her prior contribution of stock to him.
[1] A lump sum alimony award requires a positive showing of necessity on the part of the recipient spouse and the pecuniary ability of the payor spouse to support that necess…
[2] An award of lump sum alimony is an abuse of discretion when the evidence does not clearly demonstrate the recipient spouse's need.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“before the wife can be awarded the husband's interest as a form of lump sum alimony there must be a positive showing of necessity on the part of the wife as well as the pecuniary ability of the husband to support that necessity.”
Establishes the legal standard required for awarding lump sum alimony in the form of property; requires both necessity and ability to pay
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties married in 1973 after living together for approximately five years. Both had been employed, though the wife claimed to be too upset to wor…
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Questioned on appeal is an award of the husband’s interest in the marital home to the wife as lump sum alimony. We find error and reverse.
These parties were married in 1973 after having lived together unmarried for approximately five years. While both have been employed it was brought out, alternatively, the wife was “too upset” to work, and did not intend to work until the dissolution proceedings were completed. There is no evidence she us unable to work. The dissolution was granted in 1976 and the wife was awarded, as lump sum alimony, the husband’s entire interest in the marital home worth a considerable amount of money. The wife also was awarded “rehabilitative periodic alimony” for six months. These periodic payments included the costs of maintaining the home: mortgage principal and interest, taxes, insurance, lawn care and pool care.
As might be imagined we have great difficulty reviewing an award which is based mostly upon matters of discretion. Here, as in most domestic matters, the trial judge aims to do what is right for all concerned within the rather nebulous guidelines established by stare decisis. To say the trial judge has abused the wide discretion with which he is entrusted is sometimes properly characterized as a substitution of judgment — which, of course, we cannot do. In this case, however, we find the evidence insufficient to support the award of lump sum alimony. This court in Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), said:
“. . . before the wife can be awarded the husband’s interest as a form of lump sum alimony there must be a posi tive showing of necessity on the part of the wife as well as the pecuniary ability of the husband to support that necessity.” at 1018.
Here, the wife was not shown unable to work. She has a one-half interest in the marital home worth over $30,000. She received $6,000 from the sale of the husband’s boat shortly before the dissolution and was to receive one half of a $2,400 tax refund owed the parties. With these funds and her interest in the home plus the rehabilitative alimony the wife is not indigent even though she may not have all she had under coverture. The award of the additional lump sum alimony being not supported by a clear showing of need constitutes an abuse of discretion so we must reverse that portion of the judgment.
However, because there is some indication the trial judge may have meant to award to the wife a special equity in some or all of the husband’s interest in the marital home on account of the wife having given some stock to the husband, we remand this matter for further consideration of that matter. REVERSED in part and remanded.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.