Kremer v. Kremer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kremer v. Kremer

459 So. 2d 472, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2496, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16412

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 28, 1984

DocketNo. 84-446

StatusPublished

This text of 459 So. 2d 472 (Kremer v. Kremer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kremer v. Kremer, 459 So. 2d 472, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2496, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16412 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, the wife argues that the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to award her a one-half interest in a major equity asset of the marriage partnership, which was titled solely in the husband’s name. We agree.

The parties were married for twenty-five years, twenty years of which the wife spent at home serving in the role of homemaker and mother to three children born of the marriage, while the husband pursued a successful career in banking and eventually became a bank president. In recent years, the wife went back to school and became a certified public accountant. She is currently employed in that capacity.

During the course of the marriage, the parties acquired substantial assets. One of these was unit 403 in Sand Castle III condominium, purchased in September of 1981. The equity in this property is substantial. It was acquired in part by jointly owned funds and in part by a loan against the husband’s life insurance policy; by a profit sharing check distributed to the husband from his former employer; and by a return of capital from a partnership in which the husband had invested. The investment in the partnership came from the husband’s earnings and the sale of two family cars. The final judgment, while awarding the wife an interest in other less valuable properties, failed to award the wife any interest at all in Sand Castle III unit 403. We believe that the trial judge abused his discretion, using the test that reasonable persons could not differ as to the propriety of awarding the wife an interest in that property. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand with directions that the trial judge award the wife a one-half interest in unit 403, Sand Castle III condominium, as lump sum alimony. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DANAHY, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, the wife argues that the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to award her a one-half interest in a major equity asset of the marriage partnership, which was titled solely in the husband’s name. We agree.

The parties were married for twenty-five years, twenty years of which the wife spent at home serving in the role of homemaker and mother to three children born of the marriage, while the husband pursued a successful career in banking and eventually became a bank president. In recent years, the wife went back to school and became a certified public accountant. She is currently employed in that capacity.

During the course of the marriage, the parties acquired substantial assets. One of these was unit 403 in Sand Castle III condominium, purchased in September of 1981. The equity in this property is substantial. It was acquired in part by jointly owned funds and in part by a loan against the husband’s life insurance policy; by a profit sharing check distributed to the husband from his former employer; and by a return of capital from a partnership in which the husband had invested. The investment in the partnership came from the husband’s earnings and the sale of two family cars. The final judgment, while awarding the wife an interest in other less valuable properties, failed to award the wife any interest at all in Sand Castle III unit 403. We believe that the trial judge abused his discretion, using the test that reasonable persons could not differ as to the propriety of awarding the wife an interest in that property. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand with directions that the trial judge award the wife a one-half interest in unit 403, Sand Castle III condominium, as lump sum alimony. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 So. 2d 472, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2496, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kremer-v-kremer-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack