Lester v. LesterLester v. Lester
After the dissolution оf a twenty-three year marriage, the wife, aged fifty-two, appeals the award of only an unencumbered $350,000 house, $500,000 in lump sum alimony and $225,000 in exchange for some antique automobiles earlier given to her by the husband. The wife‘s C.P.A. valued the husband‘s net worth at $11,000,000. We affirm.
The husband, aged sixty-seven at the timе of the dissolution, founded a tool and die business worth approximately $900,000 at the time of the marriage. He sold it some considerable time bеfore the dissolution for approximately $14,000,000, although he was only worth $11,000,000 at the time of the dissolution. The wife entered into the marriage penniless, having last worked as a hat-check girl. During the marriage, she did not work, nor did the husband expect her to do so, but he gave her stock and antique аutomobiles which, augmented by the lump sum alimony and
There were no children born of this union, and while the husband had four children by a prior marriage, the wife (this was her fourth marriage, twice to this husband) was not a force in reаring those children, according to the trial judge. The wife did not contribute to the growth in value, or the operation of the husband‘s business, that growth being аttributed solely to the husband‘s genius, to the expertise of one of his key employees and to the increased custom of the same basic list of clients which he serviced prior to the marriage (e.g., General Motors, Ford, Black & Decker).
The trial judge also found that the wife “is a 52 year old, vеry attractive, articulate woman who ... has developed a high ornamental lifestyle ... [which] has, throughout the marriage, included fine homes, sеrvants, butlers, cooks and all of the accompanying assistants incidental to the wealthy status which the parties have carved out for themselves.”
Among other things, when this appeal was filed, the wife was claiming error because the trial court failed to award permanent periodic alimony; however, that particular claim has been mooted by her remarriage.
The main remaining point concerns the triаl court‘s finding that “the evidence fails to sustain the wife‘s right to any equitable interest in the assets of the husband.” We agree this was an unfortunate choice of words, but the final judgment as a whole reflects a permissible equitable distribution, or as the trial judge put it: “provided for her in a fair and reasоnable manner.”
To begin with, we do not agree with the wife‘s contention that the “gift” of $2,500,0002 made to the wife during the marriage cannot be taken into аccount when considering an equitable distribution. The folly in ignoring such a gift can best be demonstrated by way of example. The wife here claims thаt the $2,500,000 is part of her “separate estate,” not a marital asset, and not distributable (not even the accretion thereof in value). According to that premise, if the husband had given her $10,000,000, she would still be entitled to a marital distribution out of the remaining $1,000,000. Such a result would be inequitable and we сonclude that major “gifts” from one spouse to another should be includable in any marital estate when calculating an equitable distribution. But see Tyler v. Tyler, 427 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
We also have no difficulty in deciding that the value of the husband‘s marital estate should be calculated at $11,000,000, less only the $900,000 which the business was worth prior to the marriage. The husband argues that the growth in value was “passive.” We do not find it so. This man was a recognized genius in his field and was firmly engaged in aсtively running his business until the time of sale.
On the other hand, placing the husband‘s marital estate at $10,100,000 and the entire marital estate at $13,600,000 does not automаtically mean that the wife is entitled to half that total sum. Ours is not a community property state. Returning to the wellspring of Canakaris,3 it is set forth there that the equitаble distribution to be made in a long-term marriage depends on the degree of contribution by each spouse to the marital estate. Id. at 1204. Indeed, in Canakaris, the approved distribution was much less than twenty-five
We also consider whether the wife has passed “from prоsperity to misfortune,” Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1204, and conclude she has not. To emerge from a marriage with $3,500,000 would be considered, in financial terms, by almost all U.S. citizens, аs amazing, good fortune. Maybe the wife‘s standard of living will not be quite so lavish as it was, but, even without reference to her remarriage, it can continue аt a level far above the dreams of ordinary, or even extraordinary, mortals. We find no abuse of discretion here.
Finally, on the question of attorney‘s fees, the trial judge ordered each spouse to pay his or her own. We agree that the husband is in a superior position to shoulder this entire burden, but we also agree that the wife is well able to fend for herself. This being so, we do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion in this, or any other regard. This cause is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, J., and SNYDER, ARTHUR I., Associate Judge, concur.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurring specially with opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, Judge, concurring specially.
I, too, conclude that affirmance is proper, inasmuch as the trial court acted within its reasonable discretion.
Because of a recent addition to Florida dissolution of marriage law, interspousal gifts during marriage are now regarded as marital assets for equitable distribution purposes.
I call attention to the section for future reference, in case members of bench and bar have overlooked its enactment.