McCarthy v. McCarthy

33 Fla. Supp. 2d 18
CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida
DecidedMarch 10, 1989
DocketCase No. 88-7691-CA
StatusPublished

This text of 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 18 (McCarthy v. McCarthy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McCarthy v. McCarthy, 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 18 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

MAJOR B. HARDING, Circuit Judge.

FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

THIS CAUSE came on for final hearing. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this action. The marriage of the parties is irretrievably broken. From the evidence presented, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

The parties were married on February 26, 1983. They have one (1) minor child, KEVIN SPENCER MCCARTHY, bom January 25, 1985, [19]*19presently age 4. The minor child is in the Wife’s custody and she provides the primary physical residential care of the minor child.

During the pendency of these proceedings, determination of visitation rights between the Husband and minor child was in the jurisdiction of the Juvenille Court in and for St. Johns County, Florida. By consent of the parties, issues regarding visitation and parental responsibility, except as to the custody and primary physical residential care of the child, are deferred pending the completion of the investigation being performed in St. Johns County, Florida.

The Husband is 44 years of age. He is Director of International Market Development for Vistakon, Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson, Inc., where he has been employed since July 29, 1981. His employment benefits include: base salary of $83,000.00 per year; Executive Compensation Program; Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan (a 40IK Plan); pension plan; and health, hospitalization, disability, and life insurance benefits. The Executive Compensation Program consists of an executive bonus awarded once a year, historically in December, stock options and stock awards. The Husband has received an executive bonus during December of each year since 1984. The Husband’s total compensation package from base salary, executive bonus, and the exercise of stock options for the last three (3) years was $119,745.20 in 1986, $139,861.06 in 1987, and $168,000.00 in 1988. The Husband’s income from all of these sources have afforded the parties a comfortable lifestyle in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

The Wife is 37 years of age. The highest level of education which she has attained is graduation from high school. She has not been employed outside the home in the last four and one-half (AVi) years by mutual agreement of the parties so that she could begin a family and fulfill the responsibilities in the home connected with the marriage. While the Wife has had some employment as a legal secretary prior to the marriage and has held several other jobs, her job skills have become obsolete during the marriage.

The court further finds that the parties have acquired the following assets which are subject to equitable distribution:

Asset Value
Equity in marital home (based upon fair market value of $275,000.00, less mortgage balance of $193,000.00) $82,000.00
Furniture and furnishings in marital home 7.500.00
VCR and CamCorder 1.500.00
[20]*20 Asset Value
Present value of retirement plan at J & J (the Pension Plan) 27,503.00
Husband’s interest in J & J Savings Plan (the 40IK Plan)1
Fixed liquid assets available from stock, stock options exercisable in 1988, escrowed cash per prior Court Order, Husband’s checking and savings accounts (less authorized expenditures for past due debts through 1/31/89, Husband’s living expenses, expert witness fees, and temporary attorney fees 11,994.10
Stock options from 12/6/84 grant2
200 shares exercisable 12/89
200 shares exercisable 12/90
Stock options from 12/3/88 grant3
80 shares exercisable 12/90
80 shares exercisable 12/91
80 shares exercisable 12/92
80 shares exercisable 12/93
80 shares exercisable 12/94

The Court finds that the number of options determined to be marital property is a product of a fraction in which the numerator is the period in months between the commencement of the spouse’s employment by the employer and the date of separation of the parties, and the denominator is the period in months between commencement of employment and the date when each option is first exercisable, multiplied by the number of shares which can be purchased on the date said option is first exercisable.

The marital home located at 7022 Cypress Bridge Drive North, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082, is presently on the real estate márket for sale. The Court determines that the value of the furniture [21]*21and furnishings in the marital home to be award to the Wife is $7,500.00. The VCR and the CamCorder requested by the Husband to be awarded to him is valued at $1,500.00.

The Husband is presently residing in London, England, where he will be residing for a period of one (1) year in connection with his position with Vistakon, Inc. The Wife should have sufficient funds made available to her to enable her to pay the on-going expenses of the marital home and debts, as well as sufficient funds for her support and that of the minor child.

The Court finds that the monthly recurring bills and debts associated with the marital home, automobile leases, and marital debts total $3,029.39. The Court further finds that the reasonably incurred monthly living expenses for the Wife and minor child for food, clothing and pre-school, not included in the above monthly recurring household bills and debts, are $1,000.00 per month, for a total of $4,029.39 per month.

The parties’ lifestyle established during the marriage has been established by the Husband’s base salary and bonuses, exercise of stock options and sale of stock from stock awards. The Husband has always exercised all exercisable stock options for marital purposes, either for major living expenses or for acquiring other marital property. All funds coming into the marriage have been used for marital purposes. There is no evidence to support a special equity sought by the Husband in the marital home.

In determining the application of the Child Support Guidelines, Florida Statutes § 61.30, to this case, the Court has considered only the Husband’s base salary of $83,000.00 per year, or $6,916.69 per month, as the Husband’s executive bonus for 1988, exercisable stock options and stock awards to date are being equitably distributed. The Husband’s net income in applying Florida Statute § 61.30(3), is computed as follows:

Husband’s base monthly salary 6,916.69
Less:
Federal income tax deductions 1,310.81
FICA 516.19
Health insurance payments 43.33
NET MONTHLY INCOME $5,046.36
The Wife has no income at the present time.

[22]

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

Related

Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer
491 So. 2d 265 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe
472 So. 2d 1145 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 Fla. Supp. 2d 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-mccarthy-flacirct-1989.