Woodard v. Woodard, 84-339

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: ANSTEAD; HERSEY, C.J., and HURLEY
• Citation: Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So.2d 631, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2226 (Fla. App. 1985)
• Decision Date: 25 September 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-339,84-339
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2226 Allen D. WOODARD, husband, Appellant, v. Rosalie E. WOODARD, wife, Appellee.

Page 631

477 So.2d 631

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2226

Allen D. WOODARD, husband, Appellant, v. Rosalie E. WOODARD, wife, Appellee.

No. 84-339.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

Sept. 25, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1985.

Charles W. Musgrove, and Earl Boyce, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Edna L. Caruso and Philip Burlington of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which the husband complains of the trial court's awards of alimony and distribution of the marital assets. We reverse.

The parties were married for 34 years and have three grown children. At dissolution the wife was 53, the husband 55. The husband had two years of college and worked for an aircraft company for some years in a semi-executive position. The wife finished high school and also worked during the marriage, for a number of years as a bank vice president. Eventually, both the husband and wife quit their jobs and began a family business in which they were equal stockholders. They worked there until 1983 when the tire business was leased to a large corporation for a five-year period. The husband continued to service the lease and maintain rental warehouses located on the leased property. The husband also obtained a real estate license but had earned no income therefrom at the time of trial. The wife testified that she did regular volunteer work at a local hospital two and one-half days per week. She did not want to go back to work for a bank because banks are now computerized and she was not trained in computers. The wife also testified about a variety of minor physical ailments including a cyst that she described as potentially cancerous. The husband was under medical care for arm and shoulder problems. No expert medical testimony was received and neither party established any significant physical disabilities.

During the marriage the parties enjoyed a comfortable standard of living, primarily because of the success of the family business. At dissolution, the parties were receiving $5,200 a month from the lease of that business and from rental on warehouses located on the same property. From this amount they pay mortgages, utilities for the warehouse, expenses for cars owned by the husband, the wife, and their son, and medical insurance for both parties. After these expenses are deducted each of the parties receives equal net income of $1,222 per month. The marital home was appraised at $130,000 and real estate mortgages on the property totaled $58,000. The husband valued the family business at $400,000. The five-year lease contained a provision giving the lessee the option to purchase the business and property for $900,000. The parties also own a one-half interest, estimated to be worth $7,000, in an airplane, $3,000 in stock, and a $5,000 CD which was purchased with money the wife received from the bank's profit sharing plan when she left their employment. The husband claimed there were outstanding joint credit card bills for $5,000 while the wife testified it was only $2,000. At the time of the final hearing the wife resided alone in the marital home while the husband rented a two-bedroom apartment. Each reflect deficits in their monthly statements of income and expenses. Much of the disparity between the wife's claimed expenses and the husband's is attributable to the maintenance of the home and the husband's lack of or lesser expense for amenities such as maid service, or items such as clothing. The final judgment dissolved the marriage and awarded the wife the husband's interest in the marital home and the $5,000 CD as lump sum alimony, plus permanent alimony of $600 per month. The court also made the husband responsible for all of the credit card debts.

In Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), and Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So.2d 203 (Fla.1985), the supreme court set the standard for determining an equitable division of property accumulated during the marriage. In Grimmett v. Grimmett, 425 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), following Canakaris, we held that marital assets should be distributed equally, unless some showing is made of a disparity in the contributions of the parties to the marriage, or unless some other...