Ellis v. Ellis, 84-229

• Citation: 461 So.2d 190
• Decision Date: 12 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 84-229,84-229
• Parties: Joan L. ELLIS, Appellant, v. Harry L. ELLIS, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 190

461 So.2d 190

Joan L. ELLIS, Appellant, v. Harry L. ELLIS, Appellee.

No. 84-229.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

Dec. 12, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1985.

Ronald Sales of Law Offices of Ronald Sales, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

James M. Tuthill of Christiansen, Jacknin & Tuthill, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DELL, Judge.

Joan L. Ellis appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.

This is a marriage of twenty-six years. The parties have three children, two adult children and one minor child. The minor child resides with appellee and the parties have shared parental responsibility. Neither party brought any assets to the marriage, however during the course of the marriage they accumulated substantial property.

Appellee has personal income of approximately $33,000 to $36,000 per year and his corporation has income of approximately $50,000. Appellant has worked as a nurse and earned approximately $10,000 to $12,000 a year, but has not worked in that occupation for several years. She also worked as a clerk in appellee's business for which she received payment. At the time of the final hearing she was unemployed. Appellant has had a serious drinking problem for a number of years. However, she testified that she intended to obtain employment when she finished her treatment for alcoholism. A social worker testified that appellant needed approximately two more years of alcoholic rehabilitation treatment.

The principal assets of the marriage included the marital home, capital stock in ARA, Inc., ¹ two office condominiums, the Longboat condominium, and a vacation home. The trial judge treated each of these assets separately, taking into consideration the form of each of the parties' respective interest in the asset at the time of the final hearing. The judgment reflected that he based appellant's share of the marital assets on her proprietary interest and economic contributions, independent of consideration of her misconduct.

The trial judge valued ARA, Inc. at $350,000 and awarded appellant 35% of the corporation's value. He stated that 35% equaled $105,000 and awarded that amount as lump sum alimony. In exchange, appellee received appellant's stock in the corporation. Thereafter, the trial judge awarded appellant appellee's interest in certain jointly owned property as part payment of the $105,000. After giving credit to appellee for his interest in the properties awarded to appellant, the trial judge determined that appellee owed appellant a balance of $50,500. The trial judge stated that he considered the rate of interest, tax consequences, as well as the total circumstances in this case, and directed that appellee pay the balance owed to appellant in the form of rehabilitative alimony at the rate of $1,000 per month for five years.

Appellant contends the trial judge erred first, in the computation of her interest in ARA, Inc.; second, when he directed the remaining sum due for her interest in the marital assets be paid as rehabilitative alimony over five years; third, when he failed to award permanent periodic alimony; and, finally, when he failed to direct appellee to pay for psychiatric treatment which the court ordered in a previous temporary relief order.

First, appellant contends that in addition to her 25% interest in the corporation, the trial judge intended to award her 20% of appellee's total interest (20% of 75%), rather than 20% of his solely owned interest (20% of 50%). According to appellant's calculations, she should have received a total of 40% rather than 35%. Although facially an ambiguity exists as to the base percentage of appellant's interest, the judgment adequately demonstrates a clear intent to award her 35% of the value of the corporation. However, a mathematical error exists on the face of the judgment....