Prom v. Prom
| Decision Date | 04 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1033,91-1033 |
| Citation | 589 So.2d 1363 |
| Parties | Stephen G. PROM, Appellant, v. Leah Annette PROM, Appellee. 589 So.2d 1363, 16 Fla. L. Week. D2791 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lester Makofka, and Michael J. Korn of Christian, Prom, Korn & Zehmer, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Barry L. Zisser and Nancy N. Nowlis, Jacksonville, for appellee.
The former husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We reverse and remand for reconsideration of the entire disposition.
The parties were married on August 27, 1976. Three children were born of the marriage. The parties separated on March 31, 1990, and the trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage on March 8, 1991. Stephen Prom practices as an attorney and partner of Christian, Prom, Korn & Zehmer, P.A., with annual earnings of $96,000.00. Leah Prom teaches school, earning approximately $20,000.00 a year. Both are in good health. Leah will, by agreement, be the primary residential parent of the three children.
The legislature directs courts in dissolution proceedings to consider certain factors and "distribute between the parties the marital assets and liabilities in such proportions as are equitable." Sec. 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1989). The starting point for equitable distribution is generally said to be an even split of the marital assets. Ervin v. Ervin, 553 So.2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). However, equitable distribution need not be an exact 50-50 split, since the court may award one spouse a disproportionate share of the assets under certain circumstances such as special equities in property, extraordinary contributions during the marriage, or to balance a permanent periodic alimony award. Ervin. If the trial court decides to make an unequal division, the court should make findings which support its conclusion. Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
A review of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered in this case indicates that the trial court gave Leah the marital home along with its furnishings and awarded Stephen certain duplexes. 1 The court made no findings of value for the home or the duplexes. As to the liabilities, the trial court made Leah responsible for the first mortgage on the home in the amount of $55,000.00 and for her car payment. Stephen must pay the second mortgage on the home in the amount of $45,000.00, the indebtedness owed to Marcus Prom in the amount of $51,000.00 2, and all of the debts reflected on his financial affidavit with the exception of the first mortgage.
To support the distribution, the trial court made the following findings:
L. The Wife has claimed an interest in the Husband's professional association, Christian, Prom, Korn & Zehmer, and bases her interest on the execution of instruments encumbering joint marital property, the proceeds from which encumbrance were invested by the Husband in the professional association; additionally the professional association was formed during the course of the marriage and the Wife alleges that she has labored tirelessly to assist the Husband in his professional endeavors, thereby forming the predicate for her claim of an interest in the value of the professional association. The Wife's claim is a 12 1/2% interest in the professional association and the Wife relies upon the Florida Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Thompson v. Thompson, 576 So.2d 267 (1991).
M. The Wife made an ore tenus motion for the Court to reserve jurisdiction with regard to receiving testimony from an expert witness relative to the value of the Husband's interest in the professional association and its intended good will, based upon the production of the books and records of that professional association for audit. The Court will look favorably upon that motion and will reserve jurisdiction for such purpose.
N. During the course of the marriage, the Husband has made various investments in rental housing with his brother, one of his law partners, and with the Wife. The Wife has no working knowledge of those investments nor of the income or expenses from those investments.
O. The Wife has requested the granting to her of the Husband's right, title and interest in and to the marital domicile, together with the furniture, furnishings and fixtures contained therein as a part of lump sum alimony and equitable distribution. The address of the marital domicile is 2802 South 2nd Street, Jacksonville Beach, Florida, 32250. Additionally, there were two mortgages and a promissory note which the Husband claims encumbers the property. The Court finds that the original mortgage in the amount of approximately $55,000 is a valid encumbrance which should be assumed by the Wife. The proceeds received by the parties from the second mortgage were utilized by the Husband in investments in his law firm, and in his real estate holdings. The alleged debt owed on a third mortgage the Court finds not to be a third mortgage but only a promissory note signed by both parties, the payee of which note is the Husband's brother with whom he has been engaged in business. The Wife has requested that the Court order the conveyance of the Husband's interest to the Wife as lump sum alimony, with the assumption by the Husband of the second mortgage and the obligation owed to his brother, Marcus Prom. The Court finds that such disposition of these debts and liabilities would in fact be a method of effecting an equitable distribution and a satisfaction of the Wife's claim against the Husband's professional association.
P. The Wife has announced her willingness to convey any interest which she has or which she may ever have had in and to the various rental properties owned by the parties or either of them during the course of the marriage as a part of equitable distribution.
Q. The Wife possesses a 1989 Isuzu Trooper automobile with a substantial encumbrance on that vehicle. The Husband has previously been paying the payments for that automobile in the amount of $478.00 per month pursuant to his agreement and an Order of this Court.
R. The Wife has agreed to assume the obligations for that automobile provided that the Court requires the Husband to pay the alimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...1991).4. After having the rehabilitative award reversed, to further consider the award in light of this court's opinion. Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). While Prom is somewhat unclear, the opinion does not specifically provide for further evidence to be taken on the issue ......
-
Nicewonder v. Nicewonder, 90-957
...sets forth adequate findings of fact as to valuation assigned to the various properties by the court. For example, in Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), this court held, consistent with many prior decisions of this court in similar Although the trial court's distribution was ......
-
Atkins v. Atkins, s. 91-3402
...Moore v. Moore, 543 So.2d 252, 256 (Fla. 5th DCA1989). Accord Ervin v. Ervin, 553 So.2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Cf. Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA1991) (distribution need not be an exact 50/50 split, but trial court must fully explain unequal REVERSED and REMANDED. BOOTH, J., c......
-
Ragar v. Ragar
...Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985) was error. Castranova v. Auth, 590 So.2d 28 (Fla. 5th DCA1991); Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Gamba v. Gamba, 587 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA1991). Although the stipulation obviated the need to prove the amount of fees inc......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...for contributions in non-marital property, where it is not appropriate for court to identify asset as marital asset); Prom v. Prom, 589 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (starting point for equitable distribution upon dissolution is generally said to be even split of marital assets; however, ......