Beal v. Beal
146 So. 3d 153
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Ms. Beal seeks dissolution after a twelve-year marriage; no children involved, all issues trialed were financial.
- Pursuant to a Partial Meditated Settlement Agreement, Beal received sole ownership of the marital residence; he refinanced and gave Ms. Beal $4,000, with alimony and attorney’s fees unresolved.
- Ms. Beal is totally disabled and cannot work; she receives $1,189 monthly in disability; a villa similar to the marital home costs about $850 monthly.
- Beal's tax returns (2007-2012) show his adjusted gross income between about $91,000 and $101,000, yet Beal testified his salary was only $72,000 due to travel and overtime changes.
- The trial court awarded bridge-the-gap alimony of $300 monthly for two years and later anticipated $1,450 monthly from Beal’s pension, while Ms. Beal’s attorney’s fees remained partially unpaid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony improperly relies on Ms. Beal’s assets for living expenses. | Beal argues alimony depletes her equitable-distribution assets. | Beal contends the court properly balanced assets and needs. | Alimony reversed; remanded for reconsideration. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not awarding the full attorney’s fees. | Beal asserts she is entitled to the full fees given disparity. | Beal contends court should order full fees in light of finances. | Remanded to reevaluate attorney’s fees on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Marshall, 953 So.2d 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (alimony discretion; abuse standard on legal standards)
- Canalcañs v. Canakans, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980) (legal standard for alimony considerations)
- Henderson v. Henderson, 905 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (de novo review for legal standards in alimony)
- Wright v. Wright, 135 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (equitable distribution influence on alimony; depletion not required)
- Grill v. Grill, 123 So.3d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (equitable distribution impact on alimony)
- Weimer v. Weimer, 677 So.2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (limitations on using assets to meet living expenses)
- Blakistone v. Blakistone, 462 So.2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (alimony considerations and asset depletion)
- De Cenzo v. De Cenzo, 433 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (relationship between equitable distribution and alimony)