Court Opinion

ID: 9909418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 15:02:57.020141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:15.832347
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                      Opinion filed December 13, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-0409
                        Lower Tribunal No. 20-9424
                           ________________

                              Daniel Ferrer,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                          Zeida M. Larrinaga,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria
Espinosa Dennis, Judge.

     Mandel Law Group, P.A., and Roberta G. Mandel, for appellant.

      Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ.

     EMAS, J.
      Daniel Ferrer, the Former Husband, appeals from a final judgment of

dissolution of marriage which awarded the Former Wife, Zeida Larrinaga:

permanent periodic alimony of $1,000 per month; the Former Husband’s

interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony; and fifty percent of the

funds in the Former Husband’s 401(k) account as of the date of the filing of

the petition for dissolution.

      Significant to this appeal, the parties were married less than seven

years (a short-term marriage 1) and the Former Wife is physically disabled,

1
  As the First District noted in Odom v. Odom, 312 So. 3d 1073, 1077-78
(Fla. 1st DCA 2021):

      The presumption against awarding permanent alimony in cases
      involving a short-term marriage is a rebuttable one. Reeves v.
      Reeves, 821 So. 2d 333, 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “Permanent
      alimony can be awarded in cases involving a short-term marriage
      where events which occurred during the marriage preclude a
      spouse from earning as much as he or she did prior to the
      marriage.” Id. at 334-35. In considering the propriety of awarding
      permanent alimony following a short-term marriage, the question
      is whether there would be a genuine inequity without permanent
      alimony; more specifically, whether the requesting spouse is
      without the means to self-support as a result of something that
      happened during the marriage. Levy v. Levy, 900 So. 2d 737,
      742 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “The short-term marriage cases in
      which awards of permanent alimony have been deemed
      appropriate have generally involved requesting spouses who
      were incapable of self-support by reason of a physical or mental
      disability.” Id. “An award of permanent alimony is not appropriate
      in a short-term marriage solely to enable the requesting spouse
      to maintain the marital lifestyle ....” Id. at 743.

                                      2
having been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis prior to the parties marrying

and, shortly after the marriage, having suffered ill health effects from a

surgery to remove a brain tumor, rendering her unable to work.

      Upon our review of the record on appeal, we conclude the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony (permanent and lump sum)

or in its equitable distribution of the 401(k) account.2 Canakaris v. Canakaris,

382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla. 1980) (“We acknowledge that reasonable

persons might differ as to what is an appropriate sum for permanent periodic

alimony in this cause, but we find it is within the parameters of

reasonableness; therefore, there can be no finding of an abuse of

discretion.”); Viscito v. Viscito, 214 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (applying

abuse of discretion review to award of alimony and equitable distribution).

      As to the award of permanent alimony, we hold that, despite the short-

term nature of the marriage, there is competent substantial evidence to

support the trial court’s determination of “exceptional circumstances” and its

finding that “no other form of alimony is fair and reasonable under the

2
 It is undisputed that the entirety of the 401(k) account was a marital asset,
and that, during the pendency of the dissolution proceeding, the Former
Husband unilaterally withdrew $6329 from the account without notice to the
Former Wife. The Former Husband testified that he used the money to pay
general expenses and his attorney; he further testified he has paid his
attorney approximately $15,000. According to the Former Husband’s
affidavit, the account balance at the time of the trial was $3737.

                                       3
circumstances of the parties.” See § 61.08(8), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“Permanent

alimony may be awarded following a marriage of long duration if such an

award is appropriate upon consideration of the factors set forth in subsection

(2) . . . following a marriage of short duration if there are written findings of

exceptional circumstances. In awarding permanent alimony, the court shall

include a finding that no other form of alimony is fair and reasonable under

the circumstances of the parties”); Odom v. Odom, 312 So. 3d 1073, 1077-

78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“The short-term marriage cases in which awards of

permanent alimony have been deemed appropriate have generally involved

requesting spouses who were incapable of self-support by reason of a

physical or mental disability.”) (quoting Levy v. Levy, 900 So. 2d 737, 742

(Fla. 2d DCA 2005)))

      The trial court properly considered the factors enumerated in section

61.08(2), including the duration of the marriage; the parties’ respective ages

and physical and emotional conditions; the parties’ actual need, financial

resources, employability, earning capacities, sources of income, and ability

to pay. The trial court considered the types of alimony appropriate under the

circumstances, made the requisite findings, and thereafter entered an award

“based on a balancing of equities supported by logic and justification.” Black

v. Black, 490 So. 2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The competent

                                       4
substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that its award of

permanent and lump sum alimony was “the only fair and reasonable

determination to prevent a genuine inequity.”

     Affirmed.

                                     5