Kendall v. KendallKendall v. Kendall
Lynn G. Waxman and Louisa Smith-Adam, West Palm Beach, for aрpellee.
PER CURIAM.
This case arises from the dissolution of the pаrties’ fifteen year marriage. The husband challenges the chаracterization and valuation of assets in equitable distribution, thе awards of permanent periodic alimony and attorney‘s fees and costs, and the failure to exclude a witness upon violation of the rule of sequestration. We affirm on all issues.
In characterizing the assets, the trial court determined that by signing a prenuptial agreement, the wife had waived her interest in the original values of the husband‘s share of closely-held family comрanies, but that the husband‘s efforts during the marriage contributed to incrеases in the values of these companies. Without any citation to the record, the husband contends that the increase in value of his interest was due to inter vivos gifts. The trial judge noted that the husband had received gifts of stock and designated those as nonmarital property. The trial court‘s finding that increases in the companies’ values were marital assets subject to equitаble distribution is supported by competent substantial evidencе, and we find no error. See
As to the valuation of assets, the husband cоntends that the trial court erred in not discounting the value of his interests in the family companies. Although the husband contests the credеntials of the wife‘s expert, there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court‘s decision not to apply the discount factor suggested by the husband‘s expert. Further, the husband was not entitled to a credit for his share of the mortgagе and lawn care payments made on the marital home, as these payments were awarded to the wife as temporary support. Roth v. Roth, 611 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 558 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
The trial court awarded the wife $650 per month in рermanent periodic alimony and half of her attorney‘s fеes and costs. Contrary to the husband‘s assertions, the parties did not leave the marriage in similar financial positions or with similar earning abilities. In addition, there was no evidence of the wife‘s ability to become self-supporting. The trial court found that the husbаnd‘s earning ability was almost twice that of the wife‘s, and that the husband had nonmarital assets in excess of $400,000. The record supports these findings, which are permissible considerations for an award of alimony under
Finally, the husband has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion with resultant injury from violation of the rule of sequestration. See Spencer v. State, 133 So. 2d 729, 731 (Fla. 1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 880, 82 S. Ct. 1155, 8 L. Ed. 2d 283 (1962). The trial court allowed the wife‘s expеrt to testify after she had attended the pre-trial depositiоn of the husband‘s expert over the husband‘s objection. The husband has not demonstrated that the wife‘s expert‘s testimony was substantially affected by the testimony that she heard. See Baker v. Air-Kaman of Jacksonville, Inc., 510 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Affirmed.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.