Marshall-Beasley v. Beasley
77 So. 3d 751
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Parties married in 1986; marriage lasted 21 years with no children.
- Former Husband earned about $400,000 annually; planned retirement at age 70; he personally guarantees the firm’s lease and line of credit and owes substantial debt.
- Former Wife is highly educated with degrees in urban policy, landscape architecture, and has held regulatory leadership; she pursued professional development during the marriage.
- Pre-petition lifestyle was elevated; parties depleted investment principal to cover expenses; Bahama Lane was the marital home; Former Husband later used 401(k) funds to buy Rugby Road.
- Former Wife petitioned for dissolution in 2009; trial addressed equitable distribution and bridge-the-gap alimony; no valid bilateral writing/stipulation to award Bahama Lane to either party.
- Trial court awarded Bahama Lane to Former Wife, Rugby Road to Former Husband, and equalized remaining assets; set Former Wife’s needs and imputed income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bahama Lane could be awarded absent a valid stipulation | Former Wife asserts a joint stipulation obligated the award to Husband. | Former Wife and Husband did not unequivocally enter a required writing or record stipulation agreeing to convey Bahama Lane. | No valid stipulation; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether Former Wife’s income should be imputed at $50,000 | Former Wife could earn more based on education and experience. | Wife's actual earnings history supports income imputation at $50,000. | Imputation to $50,000 supported by competent substantial evidence. |
| Whether bridge-the-gap alimony was appropriate vs permanent periodic alimony | Wife should receive permanent periodic alimony due to disparity in income and needs. | Bridge-the-gap alimony is appropriate to ease transition and is limited in duration with reasonable needs. | No abuse of discretion; one year of bridge-the-gap alimony was affirmed over permanent alimony. |
| Whether jewelry gifts are marital assets | Gifts could be nonmarital if properly titled or intended as nonmarital. | Gifts were purchased with marital funds and are interspousal gifts, thus marital assets. | Jewelry gifts are marital assets; the attempted deed did not prove nonmarital intent. |
| Whether Former Husband’s pre-petition 401(k) distribution was properly taxed/distributed | The 401(k) withdrawal should be treated as marital asset depletion. | Withholding taxes and retirement status meant the distribution was appropriately counted as net funds. | Net withdrawal of $351,112 confirmed; tax withholdings and treatment deemed correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lule v. Lule, 60 So.3d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for equitable distribution)
- Rafanello v. Bode, 21 So.3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (competent substantial evidence standard for alimony and distribution)
- Farrell v. Farrell, 661 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (binding stipulations require writing or on-record bilateral agreement)
- Mount v. Mount, 989 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (income imputation supported by evidence of earning capacity)
- Schram v. Schram, 932 So.2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (imputing income where party can earn more with best efforts)
- Zarycki-Weig v. Weig, 25 So.3d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (distance between unemployment and ability to earn affects imputation)
- Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 912 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (support for reasonable earning capacity in imputation context)
- Levine v. Levine, 964 So.2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (alimony considerations and reasonable maintenance not to fund excess lifestyle)
- Nichols v. Nichols, 907 So.2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (standard that living within means is not sole factor in alimony)