Szemborski v. Szemborski, 86-881
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1992,512 So.2d 987 |
| Decision Date | 13 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-881,86-881 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1992 Judith A. SZEMBORSKI, Appellant, v. Alfred A. SZEMBORSKI, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
William M. Barr, of Raymond, Wilson, Conway, Barr, Burrows and Jester, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Lester A. Lewis, of Coble, McKinnon, Rothert, Barkin, Gordon, Morris & Lewis, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution claiming that the distribution of marital assets was inequitable and that her award of permanent periodic alimony was inadequate. We find no abuse of discretion as to the alimony award but agree that the distribution of marital assets was inequitable.
The husband and wife were married for over twenty-seven years and have two grown children. At the time of the final hearing in January 1986, the parties were both forty-nine years old. The wife was a registered nurse but stopped working when the parties' first child was born. The husband was an engineer but left his position in Texas and moved the family to Florida to go into the motel business. The record reflects that the husband's parents financed the motel venture by loaning funds to the husband and his brother and two sisters. Through a series of maneuvers, mainly for tax avoidance purposes, the husband's parents loaned money to a corporation in which the children, their spouses and the grandchildren have interests. The loans were either paid off from profits of the motel or they were forgiven. Presently the husband has an interest in two family corporations which own the Daytona Inn Seabreeze and the Daytona Inn Broadway. At a 1984 shareholder meeting, it was determined that the market value of the Daytona Inn Seabreeze was 2.5 million and the Daytona Inn Broadway was 4 million.
Following the hearing, the trial court entered a rather lengthy final judgment. The court found that the husband was in good health and that the wife was in poor health and able to work only part time. The court also found that the husband's parents had encouraged the husband and wife to move to Florida to begin a family-run motel business and that over the years, the motels had prospered and the debt pertaining to the motels had been reduced. However, the court found that after the parties' separation, the husband tried to defeat the wife's marital rights by financing large renovation projects to create the appearance of a poor cash flow and a lack of liquidity. The trial court specifically found that these problems were exaggerated and were due primarily to the husband's efforts to defeat the wife's marital rights. The court also found that the testimony of the husband and his two accountant witnesses was misleading and lacking in credibility at important points. The court found that the wife needed and was entitled to receive the marital home, $200,000 payable over twelve years as lump sum alimony, $1,500 per month as permanent periodic alimony, attorney's fees and costs, and other properties and benefits.
On appeal, the husband concedes that the wife received about twenty-eight percent of the parties' assets while the husband received about seventy-two percent. The record simply does not support any reason for awarding the husband close to three times as much as the wife.
The husband's argument that he is financially "strapped" to even meet the awards given to the wife is without merit. Prior to the dissolution, the mortgage on one motel was paid off and the corporation was reducing its debt. After the parties separated, the corporation suddenly borrowed large sums of money for renovation projects. The trial court specifically found that any financial difficulty was entirely the husband's fault. Thus the husband cannot defeat the wife's claim to equitable distribution on this ground.
The husband also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Turner
...v. Pardue, 518 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Keller v. Keller, 521 So.2d 273, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 512 So.2d 987, 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So.2d 586 (Fla.1988); Wright v. Wright, 505 So.2d 699, 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Thus, an equitabl......
-
Bain v. Bain, 89-451
...raised at the trial court level.5 See Zachary v. Zachary, 551 So.2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Moore at 256; Szemborski v. Szemborski, 512 So.2d 987, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So.2d 586 (Fla.1988); Wynn v. Wynn, 478 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 5th DCA ...
-
Overstreet v. Overstreet, 86-980
...Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); 5 Jennings v. Jennings, 510 So.2d 994, (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 512 So.2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). See In Re Marriage of Iverson, 508 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Grant v. Grant, 506 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); G......
-
Halberg v. Halberg, s. 86-3148
...4th DCA 1985). As to the parties' challenges to the attorney's fee awards, we find no basis for reversal. See Szemborski v. Szemborski, 512 So.2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Appellant's remaining points lack Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 1 The Final Judgment of Dissolution ......