Miller v. Miller, 82-2
| Decision Date | 29 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2,82-2 |
| Citation | 423 So.2d 638 |
| Parties | Ronald C. MILLER, Appellant, v. Cheryl L. MILLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Weck of Weck & Weck, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Steve Gomberg of Lubin & Hamill, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The amended final judgment of dissolution in this case, among other things, awarded the former wife fifteen thousand dollars as lump sum alimony. The same judgment, however, candidly acknowledged that a critical problem in the case "is the lack of immediate and ready dollars ...." Since the latter determination is amply supported by the record, the award of lump sum alimony cannot be sustained. "A judge may award lump sum alimony to ensure an equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage, provided the evidence reflects (1) a justification for such lump sum payment and (2) financial ability of the other spouse to make such payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status." Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980). Here, the former husband totally lacks the ability to comply with the court's award. Consequently, it must be reversed. But, since the lump sum award is part of an integrated effort to assist the former wife, we remand the cause with sufficient authority so that the trial court may "exercise broad discretion to modify the related matters within his original plan for division and support as may be necessary in order to do equity and justice between the parties ...." Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So.2d 988, 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Next, we address the limitations which the trial court placed on the use of the marital residence. Prior to the final hearing, the parties agreed that the husband would have custody of the minor child. Counsel for the wife also indicated to the court that Accordingly, the amended final judgment awarded custody of the minor child to the father and permitted both to live in the marital home "as long as [the father] is unmarried and has no sleep-over or live-in girl friends." Because restrictions of this nature impact upon the private life of the custodial parent they will be sustained only if the record contains competent substantial evidence to demonstrate that they are required to safeguard the best interests of the child. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frechter v. Frechter, s. 88-1723
...substantial evidence to demonstrate that they are required to safeguard the best interests of the child." Miller v. Miller, 423 So.2d 638, 639-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also Martin v. Martin, 507 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Nichols v. Nichols, 491 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA Summarizing, w......
-
Perez v. Fay
...child before those restrictions will be sustained. See Lovell v. Lovell, 14 So.3d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ; Miller v. Miller, 423 So.2d 638, 639–40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Here, the Father presented no evidence that the Mother had conducted herself during her supervised time-sharing in ......
-
Lovell v. Lovell
...that such a restriction or limitation is in the best interests of the children in order for it to be sustained. Miller v. Miller, 423 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In Miller, our sister court succinctly held that because restrictions such as the one imposed in the present case "impact upon......
-
Mummaw v. Mummaw, 88-661
...Dahlhofer v. Dahlhofer, 495 So.2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). 1 See Martin v. Martin, 507 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987); Miller v. Miller, 423 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Danoff v. Danoff, 501 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Nichols v. Nichols, 491 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Howard v. ......
-
Mental-Health Issues in Florida Family Law.
...and restriction(s) are used interchangeably in this article. (84) Lovell v. Lovell, 14 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Miller v. Miller, 423 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA (85) Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). (86) Perez v. Fay, 160 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (stating th......