Rico v. Rico, 85-1067
| Decision Date | 24 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1067,85-1067 |
| Citation | 487 So.2d 1161,11 Fla. L. Weekly 972 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 972 Jose Roberto RICO, etc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Rosario RICO, etc., Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
Hugo H. de Beaubien, of Drage, de Beaubein, Milbrath & Simmons, Orlando, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Philip F. Bonus, Orlando, for appellee/cross-appellant.
The husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the bulk of the marital property to the wife. We agree, and reverse.
The parties were married for almost 30 years and had no children. The husband is a self-employed electrician. In 1984 the husband earned $8,530. The wife speaks very little English and has not been employed for more than 10 years. The marital assets have a total value of less than $170,000. The marital home and adjoining improved property have a value of $132,000. There is a vacant lot valued at $20,000, and the husband's I.R.A. account worth $8,200. There are also three motor vehicles; a 1959 Cadillac which does not run, a 1975 Honda and a 1983 Toyota truck.
In dividing the marital assets, the wife was given the husband's interest in the marital home and adjoining improved property as lump sum alimony. This real property is not encumbered with a mortgage, and the adjoining improved property produces rental income of at least $170 per month. The wife also received the 1975 Honda. For support, the wife was awarded permanent periodic alimony of $150 per month. The husband received the wife's interest in the vacant lot and the I.R.A. account. The husband also received the Toyota truck on which he still owes $3,335, and the 1959 Cadillac.
Lump sum alimony may be used to achieve an equitable distribution of assets. See Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So.2d 203 (Fla.1985). However, the evidence must reflect (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. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980). There is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the award here, so logic and justification for the result are absent. Under those circumstances, there is an abuse of discretion. See Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So.2d 542 (Fla.1985); Wynn v. Wynn, 478 So.2d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ().
In dividing marital assets, a trial judge should ensure that neither spouse automatically passes from prosperity to misfortune. Canakaris, supra. In this case, the marital home and adjoining property constitute the major assets of the marriage. Although equitable distribution does not necessarily have to be equal, the wife in the instant case unreasonably benefitted from a lopsided distribution....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hallman v. Hallman
...denied, 520 So.2d 586 (Fla.1988); Laman v. Laman, 490 So.2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 500 So.2d 544 (Fla.1986); Rico v. Rico, 487 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); G'Sell v. G'Sell, 390 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Cowan v. Cowan, 389 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397......
-
Moore v. Moore
...the record does not justify a 58.5/41.5 split favoring Carol. Jennings v. Jennings, 510 So.2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Rico v. Rico, 487 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Adamson v. Adamson, 458 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Appellant argues that the court should have picked a valuation date......
-
Keller v. Keller
...all the items of distribution are interrelated, on remand the trial court may in its discretion revisit this award. See Rico v. Rico, 487 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Kuehn v. Orlosky, 470 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We find the appellant's remaining point on appeal without merit. In s......
-
Lanzetta v. Lanzetta, 89-2064
...15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Weisfeld v. Weisfeld, 513 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), approved, 545 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1989); Rico v. Rico, 487 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Berger v. Berger, 464 So.2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also Carroll v. Carroll, 471 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denie......