Thompson v. Thompson, 87-1356
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1607,546 So.2d 99 |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1356,87-1356 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1607 William De Forest THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Tobitha THOMPSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., and Searcy & Denney, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Klein, Beranek & Walsh, P.A., and Ronald Sales of Ronald Sales, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The former husband appeals from property distribution, permanent alimony and award of attorney's fees provisions of the trial court's final judgment of dissolution. We affirm.
The guiding principles for this opinion, as for many marriage dissolution cases, are found in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So.2d 203 (Fla.1985), and their progeny. These principles may be expressed as follows:
(1) Distribution of existing marital assets, and award of permanent periodic alimony, lump sum alimony, child support, special equity and exclusive use of jointly owned property as remedies in dissolution orders are parts of an overall scheme that should be reviewed not piecemeal but as a whole, applying the abuse of discretion standard. If a reasonable person could have concluded as did the trial court, there has been no abuse of discretion.
(2) Generally, marital assets should be distributed equally, unless a disparity is shown in the respective parties' contributions, or another relevant factor justifies a variation.
(3) In awarding lump sum alimony, the court should consider all relevant circumstances in order to assure equity and justice between the parties. It should be awarded only in special circumstances, such as where, for example, the receiving spouse assisted the paying spouse in accumulating property; and where the paying spouse's financial condition makes it possible without jeopardy to that party's business, profession or employment. This principle, expressed in Canakaris, is lifted directly from and attributed to the opinion in Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So.2d 554 (Fla.1949).
In the instant case, the former wife acted during four early years of this twenty-three year marriage simultaneously as mother, housekeeper, and substantial economic provider, while the husband completed his collegiate and legal education. Thereafter she bent her energies primarily to a career as wife and mother, managing the household and rearing the parties' children. Upon becoming a member of the bar, the husband, after a more or less average start insofar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travis v. Travis
...good will for the purpose of division: Richmond v. Richmond, 779 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1989) (sole practitioner), Thompson v. Thompson, 546 So.2d 99 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989) (partnership), Prahinski v. Prahinski, 75 Md.App. 113, 540 A.2d 833 (1988) (sole practitioner), Beasley v. Beasley, 359 Pa.......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...& Marks, P.A., Miami, amicus curiae for The Family Law Section of The Florida Bar. McDONALD, Justice. We review Thompson v. Thompson, 546 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public In marriage dissolution proceeding......
-
Hamlet v. Hamlet, 88-1849
...are parts of an overall scheme that should be reviewed "not piecemeal but as a whole." (emphasis in original) Thompson v. Thompson, 546 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). That is to say, the distribution may be deemed "equitable" because an inequitable distribution of assets was offset by perman......
-
Hahn v. Hahn, s. 90-0221
...alimony and lump sum alimony and in allocating the marital assets. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Thompson v. Thompson, 546 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), remanded on other grounds, 576 So.2d 267 (Fla.1991); Vanderslice v. Vanderslice, 396 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); ......