Lapham v. Lapham
| Decision Date | 23 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D00-1597.,5D00-1597. |
| Parties | Arthur E. LAPHAM, Appellant, v. Barbara M. LAPHAM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James R. Dressler, Cocoa Beach, for Appellant.
Michael D. Holliday, of Michael D. Holliday, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellee.
Arthur Lapham (husband) appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Barbara Lapham (wife). We affirm the award of alimony but strike that portion of the judgment requiring husband to secure his alimony obligation.
The parties first married in 1985 and divorced three years later. The parties remarried in March of 1992 but lived together only until May of 1993. From that date until the date the petition for dissolution was filed, the parties participated in what was accurately described by the trial court as a non-traditional marriage. Each party has lived in his or her own home, maintained separate bank accounts, and kept separate property. However, the parties continued to interact with each other, going on trips together, spending time together, and regularly sharing meals together. The husband regularly mowed the wife's lawn and the wife regularly did the husband's laundry. The husband voluntarily made monthly support payments to the wife.
At trial, the husband contended that the parties' marriage was short term, having de facto ended when the parties began living separately in May 1993. The wife meanwhile argued that their marriage actually lasted through the seven year period because, although the parties lived separately, they continued to conduct themselves as husband and wife until the dissolution petition was filed. At the time of trial, the husband was 67 years old and had a gross annual income of approximately $39,000 while the wife was 61 years old and earned less than $16,000 per year.
In entering its final judgment, the trial court rejected the husband's claim that the marriage was short term and awarded the wife $375.00 per month in permanent periodic alimony. The husband challenges the propriety of this award.
"The trial court has a very broad ambit of discretion in resolving issues raised in dissolution cases." Moore v. Moore, 543 So.2d 252, 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). An award of permanent alimony is a determination left largely to the discretion of the trial court and appellate courts must affirm if there is a reasonable basis in the record for such a determination. Id. at 255. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the parties' marriage was not short term, but rather in the grey area between a long-term and a short term marriage, and awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony on the facts presented. See Pollock v. Pollock, 722 So.2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
. The trial court found need on the part of the wife for alimony so that she could afford to pay her health insurance expense, a new expense which will arise after the dissolution when she will no longer be covered under the husband's military policy. The trial court further found the husband possesses the ability to afford that payment.
The trial court also ordered that $70,000 which the wife owes to the husband must be used to secure the husband's alimony obligation, providing that the debt be released if the husband predeceases the wife. At the time of the parties' first divorce, the marital home was transferred to the wife and she signed a note in favor of the husband in the amount of $70,000. The note is interest free, and due and payable only when the wife sells the home or dies. The husband testified that his brother owns one-half of the promissory note. The court heard testimony that the husband had canceled his existing life insurance coverage shortly before trial and apparently provided for this security arrangement in light thereof. We strike the award.
Section 61.08(3) of the Florida Statutes (1999) provides that, to the extent necessary to protect an award of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alpha v. Alpha, 5D03-1013.
...McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So.2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). 24. Lapham v. Lapham, 778 So.2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Richardson v. Richardson, 722 So.2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 25. Moorehead v. Moorehead, 745 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 199......
-
Engesser v. Engesser
...that seven plus years falls into the "gray" area where there is no presumption for or against alimony awards); Lapham v. Lapham, 778 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that sevenyear marriage falls into gray area); see also Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (finding ......
-
ENGESSER v. ENGESSER
...that seven plus years falls into the "gray" area where there is no presumption for or against alimony awards); Lapham v. Lapham, 778 So.2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that seven-year marriage falls into gray area); see also Segall v. Segall, 708 So.2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (finding e......
-
Ruberg v. Ruberg
...life insurance or other security is "necessary to protect [the] award of alimony" under section 61.08(3). See also Lapham v. Lapham, 778 So.2d 487, 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (stating that life insurance requirement or other security "is not required or automatic ... [but] `it is [instead] jus......
-
Appellate court trends in permanent alimony for "Gray Area" divorces: 1997-2007.
...that consecutive marriages between the same parties may be added together in determining the length of a marriage. Lapham v. Lapham, 778 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (12) Burrill v. Burrill, 701 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1997). (13) Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1999......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...Johnson v. 5 years $3,000 Johnson per 779 So. 2d 620 month (Fla. 5th DCA from 2001) annuity Lapham v. approx. 8 61 less Lapham years than 778 So. 2d 487 $16,000 (Fla. 5th DCA per year 2001) Thomas v. 14 $1760 Thomas years per 776 So. 2d 283 month (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) Escudero v. 9 years 68 $......