Dunkel v. Dunkel
196 So. 3d 480
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties married ~13 years; no children. Former Wife (Daly) sought equitable distribution and withdrew request for support alimony, requesting lump-sum alimony as a means to secure equitable distribution.
- Parties stipulated to a partial equitable-distribution resolution before trial; remaining issues resolved by the trial court.
- Trial court awarded equal division of 1,364,230 marital shares of stock and $2,088,168 in marital cash and ordered the Former Husband (Dunkel) to transfer the Wife’s share within 30 days.
- During litigation the parties had a temporary mediation agreement providing temporary alimony of $19,500/month to the Wife.
- The amended final judgment found the Wife still in need and the Husband able to pay, and ordered continuation of the temporary alimony until equitable-distribution transfers were made; lump-sum alimony was denied.
- Husband appealed the amended final judgment challenging dissipation findings, cash available for distribution, disqualification rulings, and the continued temporary alimony award; the court affirmed except it reversed the continuation of temporary alimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Daly) | Defendant's Argument (Dunkel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether temporary alimony continued post-judgment | Temporary mediation agreement should remain in effect until transfers made | Temporary alimony merged into judgment and cannot be continued absent consent/request | Reversed: temporary alimony terminated at final judgment; continuation was error |
| Whether lump-sum alimony was available | Lump-sum alimony unnecessary because temporary payments continued | Lump-sum alimony could be an appropriate means to effectuate equitable distribution | Trial court may reconsider lump-sum alimony on remand as part of equitable distribution |
| Whether trial court properly applied law re: alimony merger | Agreement could permit postjudgment continuation | Rule: temporary alimony merges in final judgment and cannot continue without consent/request | Court applied Rankin; merger rule controls; continuation improper |
| Procedural challenges (dissipation, cash, disqualification) | Various challenges to factual findings and rulings | Trial court's detailed factual findings supported distribution and rulings | Affirmed on those issues (no reversible error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbe v. Abbe, 475 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1985) (equitable distribution may include lump-sum alimony to effectuate fairness)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (standards for equitable distribution and lump-sum alimony)
- Broemer v. Broemer, 109 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (appellate review: facts supported alimony awards; legal application reviewed de novo)
- Rankin v. Rankin, 275 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (temporary alimony merges into final judgment and does not continue post-judgment)
- Efron v. Efron, 813 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (discusses trial court power to leave temporary alimony in place until relief resolved)
- Valentine v. Valentine, 137 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (treatment of temporary alimony as durational alimony in a prior case; distinguished here because Wife waived support alimony)