Gardiner v. Gardiner
207 So. 3d 987
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties married in Sweden (2006); husband filed for divorce in Sweden in 2011; wife filed a dissolution action in Manatee County, Florida, seeking permanent periodic alimony and the marital home as either lump sum alimony or equitable distribution.
- Marital home titled in both names but purchased with husband’s premarital funds; home value found to be $110,000.
- Trial court found both parties had modest monthly incomes (~$1,091 husband; ~$1,195 wife), the husband’s income/assets had dwindled, and the wife had made uncompensated contributions to the husband’s businesses.
- Trial court denied permanent periodic alimony (finding husband lacked ability to pay) but awarded the marital home to the wife as lump sum alimony, ordering husband to deed his interest to her; court referenced wife’s likely homelessness without the award.
- Husband appealed, arguing the award was erroneous either as spousal support or as an unequal equitable distribution because the trial court failed to make required statutory findings.
Issues
| Issue | Gardiner (Wife) Argument | Gardiner (Husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding the marital home as lump sum alimony was permissible | Award justified to compensate wife for uncompensated contributions and to prevent her homelessness; therefore lump sum alimony appropriate | Trial court failed to state whether award was for spousal support or equitable distribution and failed to make statutory findings required for either | Reversed as to lump sum alimony; remanded for required findings |
| Whether trial court made required findings under equitable-distribution or spousal-support statutes | Implicit findings (contributions, economic circumstances) sufficed | No specific findings tied to statutory factors; no determination that husband had ability to pay lump sum | Trial court erred: must identify purpose of lump sum award and make factual findings addressing statutory factors and ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Pipitone v. Pipitone, 23 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA) (distinguishes purpose of lump sum alimony as either spousal support or equitable distribution)
- Guida v. Guida, 870 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA) (trial court must state whether lump sum award is for support or distribution and make statutory findings)
- Glazner v. Glazner, 693 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 5th DCA) (same principle regarding lump sum awards)
- Feger v. Feger, 850 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA) (unequal distribution must be supported by factual findings tied to statutory factors)
- Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA) (alimony awards require specific factual findings under statute)
- Dunkel v. Dunkel, 196 So. 3d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA) (lump sum alimony for distribution requires evidence of justification and payer’s ability to pay)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.) (principles on equitable distribution and ensuring payments do not substantially endanger payer’s economic status)