Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Can equitable distribution and alimony overlap in a Florida divorce? This is possible, for example, when a court awards a party a greater share of marital assets as a form of lump sum alimony. This was an issue in the case Goodman v. Goodman, 6D23-248 (Fla. 6th DCA February 24, 2023).
The parties in this divorce case had to appeal their case a few times because the trial court did not follow the appellate court’s directive on retroactive alimony. In the third and instant appeal, the former wife also argued it was error to award her certain funds as temporary relief, but then to also award it to her as equitable distribution in the final judgment. According to the opinion, those funds were “(1) a share of Former Husband’s annual bonus in the amount of $16,900; (2) a share of Former Husband’s annual stock options award in the amount of $14,000; and (3) a portion of an Ameritrade brokerage account in the amount of $15,000.
As to the bonus and stock options, the appellate court disagreed with the former wife, holding “As to the bonus and the stock options, Former Wife is incorrect that these amounts were awarded to her in equitable distribution. These amounts were treated as income to Former Husband and paid to Former Wife as temporary alimony. This was not improper. A trial court has discretion to treat stock options as income rather than assets. See Seither v. Seither, 779 So. 2d 331, 333-34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Such treatment was especially appropriate here where Former Husband receives stock options every year on a recurring basis.”
However, the appellate court agreed with the former wife that the award of the Ameritrade account to her as temporary alimony and as equitable distribution was improper. It held “the trial court did not purport to make an unequal distribution of marital assets for the purpose of awarding Former Wife lump sum alimony. Instead, the trial court purported to make an equal distribution of the parties’ marital estate. And yet, the trial court found a part of the supposedly equal half of the marital estate received by Former Wife to also be temporary alimony paid to her by Former Husband. If the $15,000 from the Ameritrade account was in fact temporary alimony paid by Former Husband to Former Wife, then this amount could not also be part of her equal half of the marital estate. If the $15,000 was alimony instead of part of Former Wife’s portion of the marital estate, then Former Wife actually received less than half of the marital estate, even though the trial court purported to order an equal distribution of the marital estate and did not make findings to support an unequal distribution of marital assets. See § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat.”
Set your consultation with a Miami family law attorney to determine how the law may apply to the facts of your case.