DIANE M. PARKHURST, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN PARKHURST, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1990-04-18
No. 89-0726
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
559 So. 2d 730 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1990)

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.


Holding

The court held that the awards of rehabilitative alimony and child support were unreasonable and that the equitable distribution of the husband's business was erroneous.


Facts & Procedural History

The wife appealed a final judgment of dissolution. The husband's income was determined to be higher than reported due to discovery violations, yet the…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The wife appeals from the final judgment of dissoulution. We reverse the awards of rehabilitative alimony and child support as being unreasonable, and remand with direction to conduct a further evidentiary hearing and to admit, if competent, such evidence discovered by the wife after final hearing as to the husband’s financial condition.

The husband is a local golf professional who earns a set salary from his employer and also derives income from giving lessons, collecting range fees, and operating his own pro shop. Because of his failure to comply with pretrial discovery, his pleadings were stricken and his actual income was found by the trial court to be substantially higher than he contended.

Notwithstanding the trial court’s determination of the actual higher income, it made no award of any equitable distribution in the husband’s business — a marital asset — and erroneously equated the husband’s equity in the profitable business with his interest in the marital home, although the former was worth more. The foregoing, coupled with the low awards for rehabilitative alimony and child support, have combined to produce an unreasonable, inequitable result, which must be corrected upon remand.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw