Sellers v. Sellers
68 So. 3d 348
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Married about sixteen years eight months; two minor children.
- Husband's annual gross income $113,250; wife had not worked 14 years and began part-time earning $12.50/hour.
- Original order awarded wife $70,000 marital-home equity and rehabilitative alimony of $2,000/month for 10 years; child support $1,285/month.
- Equitable distribution left husband with $86,318 and wife with $139,638, including home equity to wife.
- After rehearing, rehabilitative alimony reduced to $1,500/month for three years; court indicated wife’s permanent alimony would be husband’s interest in the home, effectively lump-sum in lieu of permanent alimony, but made no proper findings or updated schedule.
- Court did not make findings denying permanent alimony nor adjust the schedule to reflect changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent periodic alimony was appropriate | Sellers asserts need due to income disparity and wife’s expenses. | Sellers contends lack of permanent alimony or appropriate restoration is justified by other remedies. | Remanded; court erred by not making sufficient findings and by not addressing denial/award of permanent alimony. |
| Whether awarding the marital home as lump-sum alimony was proper | Wife should receive home equity to satisfy ongoing needs; lump-sum could justify equity distribution. | Home could be treated as lump-sum in lieu of permanent alimony only with findings; court failed to provide justification. | Remanded; insufficient findings to justify lump-sum in lieu of permanent alimony and to reconcile with income/expense needs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (establishes broad discretion in allocating remedies to achieve equity in dissolution)
- Barbieri v. Barbieri, 582 So.2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (lump-sum in lieu of permanent alimony requires justification)
- Peak v. Peak, 411 So.2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (reverses lump-sum awards where support cannot meet living expenses)
- Rosario v. Rosario, 945 So.2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (trial court must find special necessity for non-modifiable lump-sum alimony)
- Perez v. Perez, 882 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (interrelated nature of alimony, child support, and property distribution)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 678 So.2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (lump-sum award allowed through equitable distribution as appropriate)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 507 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (requires showing of need, ability to pay, and justification for alimony)