Sweeney v. Sweeney, 90-2836
| Decision Date | 29 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2836,90-2836 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D1930 David L. SWEENEY, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Noemi J. SWEENEY, Appellee/Cross Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John P. Townsend, Ft. Walton Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.
Lawrence P. Bush, Ft. Walton Beach, for appellee/cross appellant.
Appellant, David Sweeney, appeals a final order of dissolution, contending that the trial judge distributed the parties' marital assets in an inequitable manner, and, more particularly, that the court erred in awarding appellee, Noemi Sweeney, a property interest in his disability benefits, in failing to consider Mrs. Sweeney's entitlement to social security benefits as a marital asset or as a source of income, in reserving jurisdiction in the event that Mrs. Sweeney is unable to obtain a tax exemption if she sells the marital residence, and in ordering him to pay Mrs. Sweeney $1,000 per month alimony. Mrs. Sweeney cross appeals, contending that the trial court erred in requiring her to execute a joint income tax return with Mr. Sweeney for 1989, and in denying her request for attorney's fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Addressing first the award to Mrs. Sweeney of a property interest in that portion of the former husband's retirement pension which constitutes a disability benefit, Mrs. Sweeney concedes that such portion is not available for equitable distribution. McMahan v. McMahan, 567 So.2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We therefore reverse and remand the cause for further proceedings.
We also conclude that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction to "revisit the issue" in the event the former wife at some undetermined time in the future is unable to obtain a tax exemption from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) following her sale of the marital residence. In the first place, it is not clear whether the "issue" that the court intends to revisit is the award of the marital residence, or the entire scheme of equitable distribution. In either case, a court may not redetermine property rights that have been established in a final judgment of dissolution. Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 937, 37 So.2d 423, 424 (1948); Harrell v. Harrell, 515 So.2d 1302, 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So.2d 224, 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 469 (Fla.1982). Because the trial court adjudicated the parties' rights to the marital residence and all other marital assets at time of dissolution, the court may not redetermine such distribution at a later time.
Turning next to Mrs. Sweeney's cross appeal, we agree that the trial court erred in ordering the parties to file a joint tax return for 1989. Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6013, 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 6013, a husband and wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bock v. Dalbey
...App. Nov. 19, 2010) (unpublished opinion). 10.Leftwich v. Leftwich, 442 A.2d 139 (D.C.1982). Accord, Kane, supra note 9; Sweeney v. Sweeney, 583 So.2d 398 (Fla.App.1991); In re Marriage of Butler, 346 N.W.2d 45 (Iowa App.1984), overruled on other grounds, In re Marriage of Wertz, 492 N.W.2d......
-
Vinson v. Vinson
...in order to do equity and justice to both parties. Young v. Young , 606 So.2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ; Sweeney v. Sweeney , 583 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, our resolution of the former husband's remaining points on cross-appeal should be instructive to the trial cou......
-
Miller v. Miller, 93-240
...353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Werner v. Werner, 587 So.2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 599 So.2d 661 (Fla.1992); Sweeney v. Sweeney, 583 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Cameron v. Cameron, 570 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Ellis v. ......
-
Vinson v. Vinson
...in order to do equity and justice to both parties. Young v. Young, 606 So. 2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Sweeney v. Sweeney, 583 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, our resolution of the former husband's remaining points on cross-appeal should be instructive to the trial cour......
-
Tax Filing Status?Joint, Married Filing Separately, Head of Household
...laws for to do so, “Threatens grave harm to “clear and substantial” federal interests.” The court enumerated the potential harm: 59 583 So. 2d 398, 399 (1991). 60 240 A.D. 2d 258, 658 N.Y.S. 2d 599 (1997) . 61 750 P. 2d 145, (Okla. App. 1988). 62 See also agreeing with New York and Oklahoma......
-
Tax-effecting marital property: the wild card in valuation.
...at least one Florida court held that to do so was error, holding that property distribution may not be readdressed. Sweeney v. Sweeney, 583 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1991). Other jurisdictions have found differently. See Re Marriage of Clark, 80 Cal. App. 3d 417, 145 Cal. Rptr. 602 (1978)......
-
Divorcing spouses can file income tax returns as unmarried individuals prior to dissolution of marriage.
...because of the potential for both civil and criminal liability. Leftwich v. Leftwich, 442A.2d 139 (D.C.A.App. 1980), Sweeney v. Sweeney, 583 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1991). There is contrary authority, however. See Theroux v. Boehmler 410 N.W. 2d 354 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). In Sweeney, th......