(Download) "John Joseph Shea v. Kathleen Thompson Shea" by First District Court of Appeal of Florida # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: John Joseph Shea v. Kathleen Thompson Shea
- Author : First District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Release Date : January 26, 1990
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 70 KB
Description
We affirm the trial court's award of the husband's interest in the jointly-owned marital home to the wife as lump sum rehabilitative
alimony.*{/Cite} We also affirm the remaining provisions of the final judgment, as amended, with the exception of that
portion requiring the parties to compile a list of unspecified items of personal property to be divided between them, with
distribution to be made by them on a "pick and choose" basis. As to this portion of the final judgment, we find that such
an award affords no basis for appellate review, thus requiring remand to the trial court for further consideration of the
rights of the parties with respect to any items of personal property in the possession of either party at the time of final
judgment as amended, as disclosed by the evidence of record, and not otherwise disposed of by the judgment and orders of
the court.1{/Cite} As the primary issue on appeal, the husband asserts that the trial court erred in awarding the entire
interest in the marital home to the wife as lump sum rehabilitative alimony, when she did not specifically seek "lump sum"
alimony in her petition for dissolution. We find no merit in this contention. The wife's petition specifically requested rehabilitative
alimony, award of the marital residence as her sole property, and "equitable distribution" of the joint assets of the parties.
The amended petition also alleged facts sufficient to establish the wife's special equity in the home property. In McIntosh v. McIntosh, 432 So.2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), this court held that a request for lump sum alimony need not
be specifically pleaded and is encompassed within a claim for temporary and permanent alimony. also, Abbe v. Abbe, 475 So.2d
206 (Fla. 1985). We know of no reason that a pleading for rehabilitative alimony should be governed by a different rule. Further,
the husband has cited no authority proscribing a lump sum award in lieu of periodic rehabilitative alimony. Indeed, section
61.08(1), Florida Statutes, governing awards of alimony, expressly provides for an award of lump sum rehabilitative alimony.
Accordingly, we find that it was unnecessary for the wife to specify "lump sum" in her claim for rehabilitative alimony. We
further find no merit in the husband's argument that the award was erroneous because the wife did not in her petition specifically
request the husband's interest in the home as rehabilitative alimony. The record discloses that the wife sought the home by
way of equitable distribution, and alternatively claimed a special equity in one-half interest based upon her ownership of
that interest prior to the marriage.