WILLIAM H. MARSHALL, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
SAVILLA K. MARSHALL, 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.
The court held that the lump sum alimony, child support, and permanent periodic alimony awards must be reversed and reevaluated due to insufficient evidence and improper consideration of the parties' financial circumstances.
[1] A lump sum alimony award may be improper when it leaves one spouse with no substantial marital assets and lacks apparent necessity or legal justification.
[2] A court may impute income to a voluntarily underemployed parent when determining child support obligations, absent a finding of necessity for the underemployment.
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution action, the husband challenged the final judgment's distribution of property and awards for alimony and child support. The trial cour…
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 Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
The husband in this dissolution action challenges the distribution of property and alimony and child support awards in the final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties. We reverse and remand for further proceedings for the reasons explained below.
First, the lump sum alimony award should be reversed and reevaluated because, by awarding the marital home to the wife, the final judgment appears to leave the former husband with no part of the only substantial asset of the marriage which was shown by competent evidence to exist. No necessity or legal justification for that award appears. See Savage v. Savage, 556 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The trial court may have relied upon the husband’s pension as justification. However, there was not sufficient, competent evidence adduced as to the value of the pension, nor did the trial court make any finding in that regard. The wife merely testified that she “believe[d] the value of his pension is anywhere from three to five thousand dollars.” See Cobb v. Cobb, 538 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Second, the amount of the child support award should be reversed and reevaluated. The wife appears to be voluntarily underemployed, and, in arriving at the amount of the child support award, the trial court is not shown to have imputed to her the income which the evidence indicates she could earn. There was no finding by the court of a need for the mother to be underemployed in order to stay home with the children in her custody, see § 61.-30(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989); in fact, it appears that the court felt otherwise. Nor does it appear that the husband’s ability to pay the amount of the child support award was addressed, taking into account the support to be provided by the husband to the children in his custody.
Finally, in light of the foregoing we also reverse the award to the wife of permanent periodic alimony to allow the trial court to reevaluate the entire case and arrive at a fair result upon remand. See Cobb, 538 So. 2d at 1371.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thilem v. Thilem, 662 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…onsider each parent’s full and present earning capacity as reflected by the record. See § 61.30(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993); Brooks v. Brooks, 602 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Gildea v. Gildea, 593 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Marshall v. Marshall, 596 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Caskey v. Pratt, 540 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Palmer v. Palmer, 530 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Specifically, the record reflects the wife performed secretarial duties while married and failed to seek similar work when…
-
Zayas v. Zayas, 625 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Section 61.30(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1991); Marshall v. Marshall, 596 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Caskey v. Pratt, 540 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).…
Authorities Cited
- Savage v. Savage, 556 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Cobb v. Edythe Cobb, 538 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)