Case Name: Charles H. TULLER, Appellant, v. Theresa Marie TULLER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-05-23
Citations: 469 So. 2d 212
Docket Number: No. 84-767
Parties: Charles H. TULLER, Appellant, v. Theresa Marie TULLER, Appellee.
Judges: SHARP, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 469
Pages: 212–214

Head Matter:
Charles H. TULLER, Appellant, v. Theresa Marie TULLER, Appellee.
No. 84-767.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
May 23, 1985.
J. Richard Staley, Orange City, for appellant.
James R. Clayton, of Clayton & Teal, P.A., DeLand, for appellee.

Opinion:
ORFINGER, Judge.
The husband appeals from the final judgment dissolving the marriage between the parties, contending that the court made an inequitable distribution of the marital assets. We affirm.
The marriage lasted approximately nine years and produced no children. It broke up because the husband became enamored of another woman who was bearing his child at the time of the final hearing. Both parties were employed and their net earn ings were substantially similar. The trial court awarded no periodic alimony, but used the vehicle of lump sum alimony as a means of making an equitable division of the marital assets. The husband contends that he was shortchanged.
The court found that, with some minor exceptions, all real and personal property, no matter how titled, had been acquired with marital funds and constituted marital property. It also found that non-marital personal property was in the possession of the party to whom it belonged. The wife was awarded the marital home ($75,000 less a mortgage of $49,000 which the wife is required to pay — for a net equity of $26,000); a 1977 Camero ($3,000); an account receivable from members of her family ($3,000); and the furnishings in the marital home. The husband was awarded two automobiles and a motorcycle ($2,200); a vacant lot ($5,000); all mechanic's tools and woodworking tools acquired during the marriage ($7,500); and an antique pitcher and wash basin.
Lump sum alimony is a viable tool for an equitable division of marital property. Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So.2d 203 (Fla.1985). Although the husband contends he was shortchanged and at first blush this contention appears sustainable, the trial court found that the husband was responsible for the loss of approximately $29,000 of marital funds through investments in the silver market and this was a factor which the court could have taken into consideration in determining how to divide the property. We will not disturb his findings on factual matters. Conner v. Conner, 439 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983). Equitable division does not necessarily mean equal division Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The trial court could have concluded that the husband was more responsible than the wife for the poor economic condition in which the parties found themselves because of his large losses in the silver market. Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1979). In the light of the evidence here, we do not find an abuse of discretion such as would warrant our reversal of the trial court's determination of what division of assets is equitable. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.