RUTH POE, APPELLANT,
v.
HARVY C. POE, 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 32-year marriage dissolution case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment, finding it abused its discretion by awarding the former wife only $600 per month in permanent alimony and giving the husband the majority of marital assets. The court held that fairness requires reconsideration of the financial awards given the wife's poor health, inability to work, and history of physical abuse by the husband.
The court reversed the alimony and asset distribution awards, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding insufficient alimony combined with an inequitable distribution of marital assets that greatly reduced the wife's standard of living. The court remanded for reconsideration of the entire financial situation, requiring the trial court to account for the husband's expenditures on his secretary and the property he transferred to her at nominal value.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding insufficient permanent alimony and an inequitable distribution of marital assets, particularly when one spouse has no capa…
[2] A trial court must reconsider alimony and equitable distribution awards when there is a significant disparity in asset division and an alimony award that greatly reduces…
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 trial court abused its discretion in awarding to the wife only $600 per month in permanent alimony, and shortchanged the wife by giving the husband the lion's share of the marital assets”
Establishes the core holding that both the alimony award and asset distribution were improper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuth Poe and Harvey Poe were married for 32 years and had three children together; Ruth also raised Harvey's son from a prior marriage. At dissolution…
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 Physical Abuse cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
We reverse the final judgment in this case except for that portion thereof which dissolves the marriage between the parties. Our review of this record leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding to the wife only $600 per month in permanent alimony, and shortchanged the wife by giving the husband the lion’s share of the marital assets.
This 32 year marriage produced three children, now grown. The former wife also raised the former husband’s son by a prior marriage. It is conceded that the former wife, 57 years old at the time of the dissolution and in poor physical condition, has never worked and has no capacity for self support, while the former husband has an active and prosperous law practice. This case has many of the same circumstances found in Orr v. Orr, 458 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) except that here, unlike Orr, the marital assets were not equally divided. While we agree that equitable distribution does not require an equal division of assets, Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), where there is a great disparity in the division of assets and also an insufficient award of alimony such as will greatly reduce the wife’s standard of living, fairness dictates a reevaluation of the awards. Cf. DiPrima v. DiPrima, 435 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), pet. for rev. denied 447 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1984).
The former wife was subjected to physical abuse from her husband on many occasions. One such incident resulted in her sustaining a broken hip, which has been operated upon twice and which is held together by five pins. She has other physical ailments which cause her much pain. The former husband should at least be required to pay the medical expenses which his former wife may incur in the future because of the injuries received as a result of his admitted physical abuse. See Hill v. Hill, 415 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1982).
On remand, the entire financial situation of the parties should be reconsidered, and in determining the financial ability of the former husband, the trial court shall take into consideration the money the former husband has expended on his secretary, with whom he admits to having an ongoing extramarital relationship, and the property he has sold to her at nominal cost. See Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1986).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, J., and UPCHURCH, F.D., Jr., Judge, Retired, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Romano v. Romano, 632 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…of marital property, or can be assigned to the spending spouse as part of that spouse’s equitable distribution. See Eckroade v. Eckroade, 570 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 597 So. 2d 835, 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Poe v. Poe, 522 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). “Dissipation” has been defined in the domestic relations context as “where one spouse uses marital funds for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irrecon…
-
Addison L. Bain v. Ingeborg K. Bain, 553 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ded for a reconsideration of the distribution of marital assets as well as the award of alimony. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DANIEL, C.J., concurs. GOSHORN, J,, concurs specially with opinion, with which DANIEL, C.J., concurs. . See also, Poe v. Poe, 522 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Laman v. Laman, 490 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 500 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1986); Tuller v. Tuller, 469 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Ente v. Ente, 442 So. 2d 232, 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); DiPrima v. DiPri…
-
Moore v. Moore, 543 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…ard of permanent periodic alimony, however, we find the disproportionate division of marital assets in Carol’s favor questionable. We have often said that a 50/50 split of marital assets is not required, but is a good starting point. See Poe v. Poe, 522 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Laman v. Laman, 490 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 500 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1986), Marston v. Marston, 484 So. 2d 32, 34 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.1986); Tuller v. Tuller, 469 So. 2d 212, 213…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1986)
- Sheilah Kristine Hill v. Hill, 415 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1982)
- Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- DiPRIMA v. DiPRIMA, 435 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- ORR v. ORR, 458 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)