PAUL CHAYKA, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
VERNA G. CHAYKA, 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 Florida divorce case, the trial court awarded the marital home to the wife as special equity and lump sum alimony while reserving jurisdiction for future child support and permanent alimony. The Fourth District reversed the home award, holding that there was insufficient evidence for special equity and that the husband's present financial circumstances did not support a lump sum alimony award, and remanded for reconsideration of alimony rights as tenants in common.
The court affirmed the trial court's reservation of jurisdiction to award future child support and permanent alimony based on changed circumstances. However, the court reversed the award of the marital home to the wife because the record contained no evidence supporting a special equity award and the husband's present financial circumstances (with business assets needed for his brokerage operations) did not justify a lump sum alimony award.
[1] A trial court may reserve jurisdiction to award child support in the future when circumstances warrant.
[2] A trial court has the authority to reserve jurisdiction to award permanent periodic alimony in the future if the parties' circumstances change.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 record is devoid of any evidence to support the award as a special equity.”
Establishes that the trial court's special equity finding was unsupported by the evidentiary record.
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 have two adult deaf and retarded daughters residing in a state institution requiring no parental support contributions. The husband is a s…
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
DOWNEY Chief Judge.
The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution in which, among other things, the wife was awarded the marital home “in recognition of said special equity and or lump sum alimony.” In addition, the court reserved jurisdiction to consider an award of future child support and permanent alimony. The foregoing judicial acts constitute the basis of the appeal by the husband.
The evidence reflects that the parties have two adult daughters who are deaf and retarded. The girls live at Sunland in Gainesville, a State institution; the parents presently are not required to make any contribution for their support. The evidence further shows that the husband is a stockbroker whose present income is $95 per week and the wife is employed as a sales clerk with an income of $110 per week. However, the husband has in other times earned substantially more as a stockbroker and anticipates doing so again.
On this record we believe the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reserving jurisdiction to award child support in the future. We are also of the view that the trial court had authority to reserve jurisdiction to award permanent periodic alimony in the future if the circumstances of the parties should warrant such an allowance. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Elkins v. Elkins, 287 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973).
However, error was committed by the trial court in awarding the marital home to the wife as a special equity and as lump sum alimony. The record is devoid of any evidence to support the award as a special equity. Nor can the award by sustained as lump sum alimony because of the circumstances of the parties. The wife has a demonstrated need, but the husband does not have the present ability to fulfill her needs. The cash which the husband has acquired is necessary to be retained in his brokerage business under his contract with a cooperating brokerage house. Except for the cash used in the husband’s business, the assets of the parties are about equal and the wife’s income is slightly more than the husband’s. Thus, this does not appear to be an appropriate case for an award of lump sum alimony. Rather, the court should have left the parties as tenants in common as to this property.
Accordingly, the provision of the final judgment awarding the wife the marital home as a special equity and as lump sum alimony is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to leave the parties as tenants in common. In view of this change in the monetary disposition of the case, on remand the trial court may further consider the rights of the parties with reference to the wife’s need for alimony, including the taking of further testimony if the court deems it necessary.
REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.
DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deortha A. Moore v. Moore, 401 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…, 247 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1971) (Wife was awarded $1.00 per year alimony where she was in need of financial assistance but husband was not financially able to pay adequate amount for alimony). . Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Chayka v. Chayka, 361 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 1122 (Fla.1979). . George v. George, 360 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). . Munger v. Munger, 249 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). . The deed to the parties was never delivered to them; they paid no taxe…
-
ROY v. ROY, 522 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…pports such a provision. The question of whether to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future lies within the court’s discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Chayka v. Chayka, 361 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 1122 (FIa.1979); Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As we understand it, the rule, generally, is that where there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warr…
-
Mullins v. Mullins, 409 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…ded .... ” The ex-wife appeals the court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction. The law is settled that a trial court can reserve jurisdiction to award future alimony. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980); Chayka v. Chayka, 361 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 1122 (Fla.1979). Furthermore, the Fifth District has recently held that, in a proper case, jurisdiction to award future alimony can be reserved for an indefinite period. Moore v. Moore, 401 So. 2d 8…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Byrd v. Neill M. Michael and Bert G. Gross, 287 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)