Lule v. Lule
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6658
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Marriage in 1981, separated in 2006, no minor children remained.
- Final judgment of dissolution issued January 22, 2009.
- Judgment awarded wife the marital home as lump-sum alimony due to husband’s abandonment and $250/month alimony.
- Judgment lacked required written findings under 61.075(3) and did not reference 61.075(1) factors.
- Trial court awarded husband’s interest in the marital home to the wife without valuation or explicit ownership historic interests.
- Court reverses and remands for proper distribution findings and alimony predicate findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the final judgment comply with 61.075(3) for asset distribution? | Lule argues the judgment omits required findings and valuations. | Havale argues the court adequately distributed assets. | No; lacking required findings and valuations; must remand. |
| Are the lump-sum alimony predicates and house valuation properly established? | Lule contends predicates for lump-sum alimony and valuation are missing. | Wife contends alimony predicate matters were addressed. | No; predicates and valuation missing; must remand. |
| Is the indefinite $250/month alimony supported by adequate 61.08(2) findings? | Lule asserts need for explicit need and factual findings. | Wife claims entitlement and discretion of court. | No; final judgment lacks necessary 61.08(2) findings; must remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsett v. Dorsett, 902 So.2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversal for lack of asset/liability identification and valuation under 61.075)
- Pignataro v. Rutledge, 841 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversal for lack of identified/valued assets or liabilities and no factual findings)
- Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (reversal for lump-sum award without house valuation)
- Singleton v. Singleton, 696 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversal for failure to comply with 61.075(3))
- Rosario v. Rosario, 945 So.2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (premised predicates for lump-sum alimony require special circumstances and adequate valuation)
- Ryan v. Ryan, 927 So.2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (alimony factors must be supported by findings)
- Eckert v. Eckert, 29 So.3d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (reversed where final judgment failed to address need/factors for alimony)
- Mondello v. Torres, 47 So.3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (abuse of discretion in alimony without proper predicate findings)
- Kovalchick v. Kovalchick, 841 So.2d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (discretion in alimony requires factual predicate)
- Jessee v. Jessee, 839 So.2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (distribution without defended 61.075 factors can be abusive)