Serbousek v. Lucas
191 So. 3d 539
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties married ~38 years; Former Wife was primary caretaker and assisted in Husband’s contracting business (books, cleaning); Husband was primary income earner.
- The business intermittently generated income; both parties ran significant personal expenses through business accounts and admitted some unreported income.
- Marital home was main distributable asset (appraised $315,000) but secured over $330,000 of debt, including a line of credit whose payments rose sharply after Husband failed to respond to a call-in.
- Three-day trial; court found neither party credible. Accounting experts agreed on ~$80,000/year business income; Former Wife’s claim of ~$540,000 “off‑books” revenue lacked documentary/forensic support.
- Trial court awarded Former Wife $2,000/month permanent periodic alimony, denied her attorney’s fees, and entered an equitable distribution that misvalued an IRA and failed to value certain credit‑card debts.
- Fifth District affirmed the alimony award and denial of fees, but reversed and remanded to consider retroactive alimony and to correct/clarify equitable distribution findings (IRA value and credit‑card debt valuation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Serbousek) | Defendant's Argument (Lucas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable distribution — IRA valuation and credit‑card debts | IRA was worth $10,000 not $14,000; credit‑card debts should be valued before distribution | Trial court’s distribution stands absent demonstrated error | Court acknowledged IRA misvaluation and lack of valuation for credit‑card debts; remanded to correct findings and adjust distribution |
| Permanent periodic alimony amount | Needs sufficient support given low earned income; sought more than $2,000/month | Court should base award on experts’ income findings and overall equities | Award of $2,000/month affirmed as within trial court’s broad discretion |
| Retroactive (pendente lite) alimony | Entitled to retroactive support beyond temporary payments already made | Court did not make findings on retroactive support | Trial court failed to address claim; remanded for specific findings and reconsideration |
| Attorney’s fees | Should be awarded because Wife lacked current ability to pay and Husband had greater earning power | Court should deny fees because assets and alimony left parties in roughly equal financial positions; some claims were meritless | Denial of Wife’s request for fees affirmed (no abuse of discretion given equalizing distribution and alimony), but trial court’s reasoning reviewed and accepted |
Key Cases Cited
- Engesser v. Engesser, 42 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (trial court has broad discretion on alimony awards)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (framework for equitable distribution and appellate review)
- Motie v. Motie, 132 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (trial court must make findings when denying retroactive alimony)
- Kouzine v. Kouzine, 44 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (attorney’s fees require showing need and ability to pay)
- Lovell v. Lovell, 14 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (need/ability standard for fee awards)
- Dybalski v. Dybalski, 108 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (factors courts may consider in awarding fees)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997) (nonexclusive factors for awarding attorney’s fees in dissolution)
- McAliley v. McAliley, 704 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (fees may be punitive for frivolous claims)
- Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (fees inappropriate where parties left in relatively equal circumstances)