Martinez v. Martinez, 97-3472.

Citation761 So.2d 433
Decision Date31 May 2000
Docket NumberNo. 97-3472.,97-3472.
PartiesClaudio MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. Martha MARTINEZ, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Caruana, Langan, Lorenzen and Mendelsohn; Cynthia L. Greene, Miami, for appellant.

Simon, Schindler, Sandberg and Neal Sandberg and Thomas M. Pflaum, Miami, for appellee.

Before COPE, LEVY, and SORONDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Former husband raises three challenges to the final judgment of dissolution. Specifically, former husband contends that: (1) the trial court erroneously valued his interest in his S-corporation for equitable distribution purposes; (2) the trial court erred in imputing to him the retained income of his S-corporation for purposes of calculating alimony and child support; and (3) the trial court erred in awarding permanent alimony to the former wife. Finding no abuse of discretion in any of the trial court's rulings, we affirm.

The parties were married in 1982. In November, 1994, the former husband filed for dissolution of the marriage. At the time of the final hearing, former husband was 48 years old and former wife was 40. The parties have two minor children. The former wife is a college graduate, but was a homemaker throughout the parties' marriage. The former husband is the owner of a construction company, which he started and developed during the marriage. At the final judgment hearing, the trial court was presented with evidence regarding the parties' lifestyle, the former husband's income, the former wife's health and employment capabilities, and expert testimony as to the value of former husband's company.

As his first issue, former husband contends that the trial court erroneously accepted the valuation method of former wife's expert and, as a result, erroneously valued his interest in the S-corporation for purposes of equitable distribution. The trial court was presented with valuations from accounting experts for both the former wife and the former husband. After listening to both experts and their market valuation methods, the court accepted former wife's expert and rejected the valuation estimate of former husband's expert. We find no error with the trial court's findings, nor with its valuation of the company. The valuation placed on the corporation was within the range submitted by the parties' experts. Moreover, it was within the broad discretion vested in the trial court to accept one parties' witness and/or valuation over the other's. See Ellis v. Ellis, 699 So.2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)

; Akers v. Akers, 582 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Finding no error in the trial court's application of the law and, finding that the Final Judgment thoroughly and exhaustively explains the court's ruling and reasoning, we decline to disturb its ruling on this issue. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980).

Former husband next contends that the trial court erroneously imputed to him the retained income of his construction company, an S-corporation, for alimony and child support purposes. We disagree and find that the record supports the award, and amount of, child and spousal support. See § 61.046(4), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 61.08(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

As his final issue, and related to the latter issue, the former husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding permanent periodic alimony to the former wife because former wife is a 40-year-old college graduate capable of employment and self support. Therefore, former husband contends, former wife is only entitled to rehabilitative alimony. The trial court found, and the record supports, that former wife cannot be rehabilitated to maintain the lifestyle of the marriage. Oxley v. Oxley, 695 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Kanouse v. Kanouse, 549 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, the award of permanent periodic alimony was proper.

The primary considerations for awarding permanent periodic alimony are the needs of one spouse versus the ability of the other spouse to pay. To determine the need of a spouse, a court must look to the parties' earning ability, age, health, education, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, and the value of the parties' estates. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1201-02; § 61.08, Fla. Stat. (1997).

In the instant case, after reviewing the parties' education, earning ability, and standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, the trial court found that the former wife would be unable to maintain the standard of living the parties established during the course of the marriage. Kanouse, 549 So.2d at 1036. The trial court also considered the fact that former wife had been out of the job market for over ten years because she stayed home to care for the parties' minor children and the household. The court recognized and accepted wife's testimony that she wished to continue to stay home with the children as she had done during the marriage. The court also found that former wife has the ability to work and/or update her training during the day while the children are in school. Accordingly, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Alpha v. Alpha, 5D03-1013.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 5, 2004
    ...devoting herself to caring for the parties' child, school and homemaking. 9. § 61.075(1) and (8), Fla. Stat. 10. See Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Nelson v. Nelson, 721 So.2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lynch v. Lynch, 695 So.2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Parker v. Parke......
  • Greene v. Greene, 5D03-3613.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 11, 2005
    ...5th DCA 1996). 8. Levy v. Levy, 862 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Walker v. Walker, 818 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 779 So.2d 272 (Fla.2000); Knoff v. Knoff, 751 So.2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 767 So.2d 458 (Fla.2000); ......
  • Alcantara v. Alcantara, No. 3D08-1265.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 29, 2009
    ...a party is entitled to permanent alimony, the trial court must consider the duration of the parties' marriage. See Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So.2d 433, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), overruled in part on other grounds by Zold v. Zold, 911 So.2d 1222, 1234 (Fla.2005). Here, the parties were married......
  • Zold v. Zold
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 15, 2005
    ...C.J. We have for review Zold v. Zold, 880 So.2d 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), which expressly and directly conflicts with Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Equitable distribution and property issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...helpful to the trial court.”).] Cases illustrate what is substantial, competent evidence for expert testimony. [ Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (wife’s expert’s testimony was accepted by trial court to determine value CASES EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, PROPERTY ISSUES §1......
  • Alimony and support
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...on evidence of insufficiently established income which was not shown to be consistently available to father); Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (no error in imputing retained income of S corporation to husband for purposes of calculating child support and alimony); McH......
  • An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 77 No. 9, October 2003
    • October 1, 2003
    ...years 793 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) Cochran v. Cochran 819 So 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA Martinez v. 12 years 40 $12,564 Martinez per year 761 So. 2d 433 imputed (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) Garces v. 24 years 54 $40,484 Garces per year; 704 So. 2d 1106 $5,000 from (Fla. 3d DCA part-time 1998) job Bron......
  • What defines income under F.S. Ch. 61: from a business perspective.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 78 No. 10, November 2004
    • November 1, 2004
    ...include husband's capital gain because the record did not establish whether the gains were recurring). However, in Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly imputed to husband the retained income of his co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT