Lagstrom v. Lagstrom
| Decision Date | 15 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2933,94-2933 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2524 L. Peter LAGSTROM, Appellant, v. Robin LAGSTROM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
August Frank La Rocco and Tracy Newmark of Fixel & La Rocco, Hollywood, for appellant.
Caryn S. Grainer of Caryn S. Grainer, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.
In this appeal, the former husband challenges a final judgment of dissolution contending that the trial court erred in awarding to his former wife the entire marital estate, all of wife's attorney's fees and permanent periodic alimony, which is secured by a permanent injunction against husband's use of his pension. We affirm the award to the wife of permanent alimony and the injunction to secure payment of same, as well as the award of attorney's fees. We reverse only as to the issue of equitable distribution of the marital estate as set forth below.
This short term, five and one-half year marriage produced no children. At the time of dissolution, the husband was sixty-four years old and retired. The wife was forty-eight years old and suffered from a depressive state, which rendered her non-functional. Two psychologists testified that the wife has no ability to be self-supporting at the present time. Husband has an income consisting of a pension payment of $900.00 per month and social security benefits of $818.00 per month. The trial court awarded the wife $670.00 per month as permanent periodic alimony to be deducted from the husband's pension account. The court also ordered an injunction against the pension preventing the husband from dissipating the assets therein. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the award of permanent periodic alimony. Simzer v. Simzer, 514 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Volosin v. Volosin, 382 So.2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We also affirm the injunction against the husband's pension, which secures his payment of alimony to wife. See Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 565 So.2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Sec. 61.11, Fla.Stat. (1993); Sec. 61.08(3), Fla.Stat. (1993).
As to the award of wife's attorney's fees, we find no abuse of discretion and therefore affirm. Canakaris.
We reverse the equitable distribution of property because the court failed to follow the statutory requirements. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1993), requires the trial court to set apart to each spouse his or her nonmarital assets and liabilities before making an equitable distribution of the marital assets. See, e.g., Embry v. Embry, 650 So.2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). This requires the trial court to identify what items are marital and nonmarital assets and liabilities. The marital assets are then subject to equitable distribution. Id. at 191. The trial court did not make such an identification as to each asset including the main asset, which is the marital home. The marital home consists of a mobile home and lot that the trial court valued between $34,000 and $35,000 and awarded exclusively to the wife thus giving her a disproportionate share of the marital assets. The failure to designate each asset makes it impossible to review the fairness of the court's one-sided distribution and requires reversal of this equitable distribution scheme.
The starting point in equitably distributing marital assets is an even division of such assets unless the trial court expresses justifications for an unequal division. The trial court must express a justification for an unequal division which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levy v. Levy, No. 2D03-2903
...Volosin, 382 So.2d at 736 (remanding for an award of permanent alimony when the wife was in questionable health); Lagstrom v. Lagstrom, 662 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (affirming award of permanent alimony when the wife suffered from depressive state which rendered her nonfunctional). How......
-
Herrera v. Herrera
...Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So.2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).4 Lagstrom v. Lagstrom, 662 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So.2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Lavelle v. Lavelle, 634 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Romano v. Romano, ......
-
Adams v. Adams, 95-1001
...DCA 1995); Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So.2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).2 Lagstrom v. Lagstrom, 662 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So.2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Lavelle v. Lavelle, 634 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Romano v. Ro......
-
Lakin v. Lakin, 4D04-826.
...alimony award in this case is consistent with those cases affirming alimony after short-term marriages. See Lagstrom v. Lagstrom, 662 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (wife who was severely depressed is entitled to permanent alimony following five-year marriage, where record revealed she was u......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...use and possession of the home may be justified as a special circumstance which would permit such an award. [ Lagstrom v. Lagstrom, 662 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).] The court’s denial of exclusive use and possession of the marital home is tied to the parties’ respective financial positi......
-
Appellate court trends in permanent alimony for "gray-area" divorces.
...figures quite prominently in a handful of cases to produce some surprising results.[13] Perhaps most striking is Lagstrom v. Lagstrom, 662 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Here the Fourth District affirmed an award of $670 per month (nearly 40 percent of the retired husband's monthly income)......