Watson v. Watson
124 So. 3d 340
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- John M. Watson, Jr. (husband) filed for dissolution; Sharon Lee Watson (wife) answered and sought alimony and child support through child’s emancipation.
- Final hearing covered incomes, storage-held personal property, expenses, education, earning capacity, contributions to marriage, and custody facts; court issued a Final Judgment awarding unequal distribution of stored items to wife, permanent periodic alimony, retroactive child support (Nov 2010–May 2012), and attorney’s fees to wife.
- Trial court found wife had need and husband ability to pay; marriage was long-duration; wife paid storage costs and value of items was reportedly less than half storage costs.
- Final Judgment included some statutory findings for equitable distribution and alimony but omitted several mandatory findings required by statute for unequal distribution and for alimony determinations.
- Wife moved to tax attorney’s fees after entry of judgment; husband appealed following denial of rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable distribution — adequacy of findings for unequal distribution | Watson (wife): awarding her stored items justified because she paid storage costs and statute allows any factor necessary to do equity | Watson (husband): trial court failed to make all statutorily required findings supporting unequal distribution | Reversed and remanded — trial court omitted required findings under §61.075(1)(d),(e),(g),(h),(i); must make them and may re-craft distribution |
| Alimony — statutory finding sufficiency | Wife: alimony award supported by trial court findings of need/ability and duration | Husband: appellate challenge to adequacy of statutory findings for alimony | Remanded — alimony must be revisited because required findings under §61.08(2)(g),(h),(j) were omitted; modify if needed after making findings |
| Retroactive child support — relation to remand | Wife: trial court properly applied guideline worksheet and awarded retroactive support from separation to emancipation | Husband: tied to broader challenge to financial awards | Remanded along with equitable distribution and alimony; court found no abuse in amount so revisit only if distribution changes |
| Attorney’s fees — entitlement and procedural pleading | Wife: entitled to fees and costs based on need/ability; court awarded fees | Husband: argues fees were waived because not pled or litigated before judgment | Reversed (no remand) — fees vacated because wife failed to plead claim and husband lacked notice; Stockman rule applies, no waiver shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Boutwell v. Adams, 920 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (unequal equitable distribution requires consideration of listed statutory factors and specific findings)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 61 So.3d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (trial courts must consider the ten factors in §61.075(1) for unequal distributions)
- Branch v. Branch, 775 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversal of equitable distribution necessitates remand of related financial awards)
- Shelly L. Hall, M.D., P.A. v. White, 97 So.3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (attorney’s fees appellate review is for abuse of discretion)
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1991) (claim for attorney’s fees must be pled; failure to plead waives claim unless opposing party had notice and acquiesced)