Wellman v. Wellman, 86-1951
| Decision Date | 31 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1951,86-1951 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 895,504 So.2d 531 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 895 Dennis T. WELLMAN, Appellant, v. Anna WELLMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Raymond VanderZeyde, Miami Shores, for appellant.
Lieberman, Kobrin, Burke & Pathman and Rosemarie S. Roth, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.
The husband appeals from that portion of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding the marital residence to the wife as lump sum alimony. We affirm.
The trial court is vested with broad discretion to distribute family assets and make appropriate awards in dissolution of marriage proceedings. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Such awards may not be disturbed unless no reasonable person would adopt the view taken by the trial court. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1202. As stated by the court in Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So.2d 542, 544 (Fla.1985), "[i]f a reviewing court finds that there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a particular award, then there is logic and justification for the result and it is unlikely that no reasonable person would adopt the view taken by the trial court."
We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that it contains competent substantial evidence to support the challenged lump sum award to the wife of the husband's interest in the marital home. The wife received no other alimony award, either permanent or rehabilitative; although both parties were employed, the husband's income and earning capacity were much greater than the wife's; and the husband had the financial ability to pay such award without endangering his economic status and the wife had a need therefor as the resident parent of the parties' minor child. See Safferstone v. Safferstone, 501 So.2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (Nesbitt, J., dissenting) (); Robertson v. Robertson, 473 So.2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) ().
Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De La Guardia v. De La Guardia, 87-2950
...alimony, Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Wellman v. Wellman, 504 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Buttner v. Buttner, 484 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and in equitable distribution of the marital assets, we affirm th......
-
Pintado v. Leggett
...fee award. Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So.2d 542 (Fla.1985); Protomaster v. Protomaster, 506 So.2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Wellman v. Wellman, 504 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Travieso v. Travieso, 447 So.2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). However, we reverse the denial of the right of the custodial pa......
-
Barbieri v. Barbieri, 89-1884
...in addition to, periodic or rehabilitative alimony. De La Guardia v. De La Guardia, 536 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Wellman v. Wellman, 504 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Robertson v. Robertson, 473 So.2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The trial court's award in this case was permissible since t......