Grimmett v. Grimmett, 81-1833
| Decision Date | 01 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1833,81-1833 |
| Citation | 425 So.2d 545 |
| Parties | Cecil GRIMMETT, Appellant, v. Bonnie GRIMMETT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bruce E. Friedman, of Sherman & Rayson, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Thomas D. Lardin of Weaver & Weaver, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution which ordered a division of the parties' marital assets 75%--25% in favor of the wife. We reverse.
The wife filed a petition for dissolution in which she alleged that the parties had substantially agreed to an equal division of all assets except for two parcels of jointly owned real estate, the marital residence in Broward County which the wife occupied and the other a small farm in Brooksville, Florida. She sought an award of the marital residence to herself and the farm to her husband with the proviso that should the farm be sold she would receive one-half of the sales price in excess of $50,000.
The facts are not in dispute. The parties were the only witnesses at trial. Their testimony indicated that they had been married for 25 years and had three adult children. Financially they occupied virtually equal positions; both had worked during the entire course of the marriage and had approximately equal earning capacities. The wife also owned a residence that she had recently inherited from her father and in which she was allowing the husband to temporarily reside. The husband claimed no interest in this property. The trial court concluded that because of the equal status of the parties there should be no award for alimony or attorney's fees. However, the court also concluded that because of the wife's contribution to the marriage as a housewife and wage earner, she should receive 75% of the marital assets and the husband 25%.
Under current Florida law the parties to a marriage are entitled to an equitable distribution of the marital assets upon dissolution. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Brown v. Brown, 300 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). In order to determine a proper division of the marital assets trial courts are authorized to consider the nature of the marital partnership arrangement involved and the role played by each partner during the course of the marriage. Ideally, there will be an explicit agreement by the parties as to their respective roles and interest in the accumulated assets. In most instances, however, the nature of the arrangement must be determined by an examination of the actual contribution and role of each partner during the marriage. For example, in Tommaney v. Tommaney, 405 So.2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), the Second District affirmed an equitable distribution of marital assets that favored the wife where there was evidence that the wife's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. Carroll
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1985); McSwigan v. McSwigan, 450 So.2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), approved, 468 So.2d 232 (Fla.1985); Grimmett v. Grimmett, 425 So.2d 545, 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). ATTORNEY'S FEES We vacate that part of the order requiring the wife to pay her own attorney's fees. In light of our......
-
Hartzell v. Hartzell, 82-2045
...that appropriate circumstances were shown to warrant a conclusion that equitable distribution was appropriate. See Grimmett v. Grimmett, 425 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The question remains whether military retirement benefits are susceptible of equitable An entitlement to military retir......
-
Tronconi v. Tronconi, 81-525
...upon an examination of the actual role played by each partner and the contribution of each to the marital partnership. See Grimmett v. Grimmett, 425 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA Case No. 81-1833, opinion filed Dec. 1st, 1982) (published simultaneously with this In the case at hand we find oursel......
-
Temple v. Temple, s. 4-86-0322
...1197 (Fla.1980); Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So.2d 1336 (Fla.1986); Grimmett v. Grimmett, 425 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). However, it is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider factors such as a lengthy period of separation a......