NANCY B. HUA v. DENNIS H.L. TSUNG
222 So. 3d 584
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2017Background
- Marriage of ~17.5 years; Husband (Tsung) was primary earner and received significant gifts/loans from his father; Wife (Hua) was homemaker and later a stay-at-home mother.
- Husband listed contingent ownership of 34% of DSC Holdings Limited shares (valued > $1M) in his name; his father testified he transferred them to avoid foreign death taxes.
- Parties owned a marital home and a rental property; Husband's father loaned ~$260,000 related to the rental property purchase.
- Trial court awarded conditional rehabilitative alimony to Wife: $2,500/month for two years plus up to $12,000 tuition for nursing school; temporary support had been $2,500/month.
- Trial court treated DSC shares as the father’s (not Husband’s) and directed that $260,000 loan to the father be satisfied from proceeds of sale of the rental property.
- Wife sought permanent alimony, classification of DSC shares as Husband’s assets for support calculations, prohibition on directing proceeds to nonparty creditor, and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Hua's Argument | Tsung's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent alimony was required for a long-term marriage | Long-term marriage creates presumption of permanent alimony; Wife needs continuing support | Trial court may award rehabilitative alimony given Wife can obtain nursing degree and Husband lacks current liquidity | Reversed and remanded: trial court failed to apply rebuttable presumption for permanent alimony and must make explicit findings on need and Husband's ability to pay; if awarding non-permanent alimony, must justify under §61.08(2) and provide alternative if conditions not met |
| Whether DSC Holdings shares are Husband's assets for support calculations | Shares are in Husband's name and should be treated as his assets for alimony/support calculations | Father (and Husband) argued shares are effectively father's and not marital assets | Reversed: shares are Husband's (title and estoppel principles); trial court must recalculate support/alimony/asset analysis treating the shares as Husband's assets |
| Whether trial court could order rental-sale proceeds paid to Husband's father (a nonparty creditor) | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate nonparty creditor's rights; father must sue separately | Trial court directed repayment of $260,000 to father from sale proceeds as part of equitable distribution | Reversed: court erred by imposing an equitable lien for a nonparty; father must pursue separate action to enforce debt |
| Whether attorney's fees award was proper | Wife sought fees based on need and Husband's resources, including DSC shares | Trial court denied/limited fees based on its view of Husband's finances | Remanded: fees to be reconsidered after recalculation of Husband's assets and alimony; trial court must make specific factual findings supporting any fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (standard of review for marital dissolution matters)
- Dickson v. Dickson, 204 So.3d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (presumption favoring permanent alimony in long-term marriages)
- Motie v. Motie, 132 So.3d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (age or earning ability alone do not rebut presumption of permanent alimony)
- Broemer v. Broemer, 109 So.3d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (remand required where court failed to address presumption of permanent alimony)
- Fichtel v. Fichtel, 141 So.3d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (fees based on need and ability to pay)
- Sackett v. Shahid, 722 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (corporate records create prima facie ownership; burden to rebut)
- Collinson v. Miller, 903 So.2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (refusal to enforce oral arrangements designed to evade taxes via constructive trust)
- Labato v. Labato, 433 So.2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (trial court may not adjudicate property rights of nonparties in dissolution)
- Noormohamed v. Noormohamed, 179 So.3d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (same principle: court lacks jurisdiction to decide nonparty rights)
- Arena v. Arena, 103 So.3d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (trial courts must make specific findings when awarding attorney's fees)