Case Name: Richard M. KIMM, Appellant, v. Patricia M. KIMM, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-02-24
Citations: 650 So. 2d 1119
Docket Number: No. 94-1086
Parties: Richard M. KIMM, Appellant, v. Patricia M. KIMM, Appellee.
Judges: GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 650
Pages: 1119–1121

Head Matter:
Richard M. KIMM, Appellant, v. Patricia M. KIMM, Appellee.
No. 94-1086.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 24, 1995.
Richard M. Kimm, New York, pro se.
Alton G. Pitts, Orlando, for appellant.
Jeff B. Clark of Jeff B. Clark, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

Opinion:
HARRIS, Chief Judge.
This case involves the dissolution of a thirty-four-year marriage. A few months prior to filing this action for divorce, Richard M. Kimm left his employment paying him in excess of $100,000 per year and took up residence with his girlfriend in another state. There he formed a consulting firm that generated deposits of $65,000 in its first year. Although Mr. Kimm urged at trial that all but $21,600 of these deposits was nonrecurring income, the trial court found that Mr. Kimm was not believable and, in fact, had an income of at least twice the amount claimed. We find the court's alimony award to be within its Canakaris discretion.
We reverse that portion of the final judgment, however, that distributes the marital assets and liabilities. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993) provides:
In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage . the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's non-marital assets and liabilities, and in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal unless there is justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors . (Emphasis added.)
Although in our case, the court did a good job in distributing the marital assets equally, it erred in allocating practically all of the marital liabilities to the husband without any explanation. On remand, the court shall determine the total amount of marital debt (including the payments on the Mercedes) and, unless the court can articulate appropriate reasons to do otherwise (see section 61.075(a) — (j)), evenly distribute the marital liabilities by reallocation of assets or otherwise.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
PETERSON, J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.
. Although the court questioned the reasonableness of this voluntary termination, it did not impute the husband's income to be $100,000. Instead, the court found that the husband actually had income of approximately $43,000 per year. This was adequate income to meet the court's award of alimony.