David v. David

Summary

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a dissolution-of-marriage judgment involving equitable distribution, valuation of a dental practice, special equity in the marital residence, alimony, life-insurance security, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed in part but reversed the unequal allocation of marital credit-card debt, the wife’s special-equity award, and the life-insurance requirement, remanding for reconsideration of the overall equitable-distribution scheme.

Holdings

1. A trial court's substantial adoption of one party's proposed final judgment is not reversible error where the judgment is not inconsistent with the court's oral rulings and the record does not indicate that the court failed to exercise independent judgment.
2. A party waives appellate review of allegedly inadequate factual findings in a final dissolution judgment by failing to file a motion for rehearing raising the alleged inadequacy in the trial court.
3. A Florida trial court may order an unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities under section 61.075(1), even when the spouse seeking the unequal distribution did not specifically plead for it in the counterpetition.
4. Disparate earning abilities, without more, cannot justify an unequal distribution of marital assets or liabilities; an unequal distribution requires factual findings supported by evidence establishing a legally sufficient basis, such as misconduct, intentional waste, or depletion of marital assets.
5. A spouse is not entitled to a special-equity interest in jointly titled marital property merely by showing that the spouse contributed nonmarital funds toward its purchase; the spouse must prove that a gift was not intended.
6. A challenge to an award of permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony fails when neither party presented evidence of a rehabilitative plan and the record otherwise supports the permanent award.
7. A trial court may not require a spouse to obtain life insurance securing an alimony obligation without evidence addressing the need for security, the spouse's insurability, the cost of insurance, and the spouse's ability to afford it.
8. The husband was barred from challenging the attorney's-fee award where his proposed final judgment expressly provided that he would pay the wife's reasonable attorney's fees and costs; in any event, competent evidence supported the award.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by substantially adopting the wife's proposed final judgment.
2. Whether the husband preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the final judgment's factual findings.
3. Whether the trial court could order an unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities when the wife had not specifically pleaded for unequal distribution.
4. Whether disparate earning abilities alone justified assigning the husband 91.6 percent of the marital credit-card debt.
5. Whether the wife was entitled to one-half of the appreciation in the husband's dental practice and whether the evidence supported the valuation.
6. Whether the trial court adequately considered tax consequences in distributing the dental practice.
7. Whether the trial court properly awarded the wife a special-equity interest in the jointly titled marital residence.
8. Whether the permanent periodic alimony award was improper because rehabilitative alimony should have been awarded or the husband could not maintain his lifestyle.
9. Whether the trial court could require the husband to obtain life insurance to secure his alimony obligation without supporting evidence.
10. Whether the award of attorney's fees to the wife was reversible error.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded