Crick v. Crick
78 So. 3d 696
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Crick challenges equitable distribution, alimony, attorney’s fees, and parenting plan in the dissolution judgment.
- Trial court adopted magistrate’s parenting plan; appellate review affirms that portion but reverses distribution and alimony/fees.
- CDs were purchased with a cash advance on the USAA AmEx card; wife redeemed CDs during dissolution and spent most funds, repaying $7,336.
- Court allocated $74,873.60 of CD value to wife and $7,336 to husband, and treated repaid $7,336 as both asset and liability for wife.
- Magistrate found wife underemployed and resource gap after distribution, but the awards produced an unequal, unsupported financial outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable distribution was abused due to misallocation of CD proceeds and debt | Crick argues the CD treatment creates an unjustified distribution favoring Crick's ex-wife. | Crick contends the court’s reasoning and calculations were adequate or, alternatively, the error requires remand. | Equitable distribution reversed for reconsideration on remand. |
| Whether the bridge-the-gap alimony award was an abuse of discretion | Crick argues $2,000/month for 24 months exceeds needs and payment ability. | Crick contends the award was appropriate under 61.08 standards and evidence. | Alimony award reversed; remand for findings on needs and ability to pay. |
| Whether attorney’s fees should be rethought on remand | Crick asserts fees should be reconsidered after changes to distribution and alimony. | Crick contends fee award should reflect final financial picture. | Remand instructed to reconsider attorney’s fees in light of final judgment. |
| Whether magistrate failed to make required financial findings affecting alimony and fees | Crick notes lack of net income and ability-to-pay findings for both parties. | Crick argues the court did not apply proper statutory/case-law standards. | Remand for explicit financial findings on need and ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tilchin v. Tilchin, 51 So.3d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing ED plan when rationale did not justify disparity)
- Tilchin v. Tilchin, 65 So.3d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reconsideration of fees tied to ED/alimony)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 69 So.3d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (expenditure of income in alimony/child support context)
- Perez v. Perez, 11 So.3d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (must view totality to avoid shortchanging either spouse)
- Posner v. Posner, 988 So.2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (financial picture consideration in alimony)
- Chereskin v. Chereskin, 665 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (financial considerations for fees and support)
- Austin v. Austin, 12 So.3d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (need for explicit §61.08(2) findings)
- Martinez v. Abinader, 37 So.3d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (consider all assets/income in attorney’s fees)
- Green v. Green, 646 So.2d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (evaluate financial resources post-judgment)
- Parker v. Parker, 655 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (overall financial position in fee awards)