Family

Reversed inadequate award of permanent alimony.

The trial court entered a judgment granting permanent alimony to the wife, but limited the amount to $750.00 per month. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife on appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal found the alimony amount inadequate. The wife’s needs were considerably greater than the sum awarded, and the husband had the ability to contribute much more than ordered.

The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the entire judgment including equitable distribution.

Reversed inadequate award of permanent alimony.

The trial court entered a judgment granting permanent alimony to the wife, but limited the amount to $750.00 per month. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife on appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal found the alimony amount inadequate. The wife’s needs were considerably greater than the sum awarded, and the husband had the ability to contribute much more than ordered.

The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the entire judgment including equitable distribution.

Reversed inadequate award of permanent alimony.

The trial court entered a judgment granting permanent alimony to the wife, but limited the amount to $750.00 per month. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife on appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal found the alimony amount inadequate. The wife’s needs were considerably greater than the sum awarded, and the husband had the ability to contribute much more than ordered.

The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the entire judgment including equitable distribution.

Protected child custody award to father.

The trial court awarded custody of a young child to the father and the mother appealed. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the father in this appeal.

The appellate court affirmed this custody decision finding:

1) The trial court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act;
2) There was competent substantial evidence to support the custody decision despite the “tender years doctrine”; and,
3) The fact that the father’s father was a judge in this Circuit did not alone make the award improper.

Reversed unequal distribution of a marital estate.

Both the husband and wife brought real property into the marriage, and eventually all property was titled in the names of both parties. When the marriage was dissolved, the trial court unequally distributed the marital estate, awarding the wife all of the condominium she brought into the marriage, labeling this award a special equity. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the husband on appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the unequal distribution of the marital estate, finding there was no basis for either an unequal distribution, or a special equity, and requiring the marital estate to be equally distributed.

Supreme Court reinstated permanent alimony award.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Hamlet v. Hamlet, 552 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) reversed a monthly award of permanent alimony because the wife had received substantial assets in equitable distribution.

Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife before the Florida Supreme Court. The Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision was reversed and the alimony award was reinstated. In so ruling, the Supreme Court held:

1) The trial court had the power to award permanent alimony despite a substantial award of marital assets to the wife; and,
2) A dissolution judgment must be reviewed in its entirety to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Reversed supervised visitation order due to constitutional due process violation.

The mother brought an action to require supervised visitation between the father and the parties’ children. The trial court entered the requested order based upon counsel’s representations and without requiring an evidentiary hearing.

Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the father on appeal. The 5th District Court of Appeal held the father was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

The matter was reversed and remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be expedited.

Reversed denial of wife’s interest in husband’s medical accounts receivable.

In this dissolution of marriage action the trial court excluded the accounts receivable of a husband (doctor) from the value of his business, and denied the wife all alimony. Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the wife on appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal required the inclusion of the medical accounts receivable in the husband’s business, increasing the marital assets to be divided. And although the Court affirmed the denial of permanent alimony, the wife’s rehabilitation plan was deemed adequate, and the case was reversed and remanded for further consideration of rehabilitative alimony.

Reversed inadequate award of permanent alimony.

The trial court entered a judgment granting permanent alimony to the wife, but limited the amount to $750.00 per month. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife on appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal found the alimony amount inadequate. The wife’s needs were considerably greater than the sum awarded, and the husband had the ability to contribute much more than ordered.

The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the entire judgment including equitable distribution.

Reversed denial of attorney fees to Wife.

In this dissolution judgment the trial court denied the wife’s claim for attorney fees due to the substantial equitable property distribution award and the alimony award. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife on appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal found the trial court abused its discretion in denying attorneys fees to the wife since the husband’s income was substantially greater than the wife’s.

Reversed imputation of income with directions to reduce by 50%.

In this dissolution of marriage action, the trial court awarded the primary residency of the parties’ children to the father. In addition, to determine the child support amount to be paid by the unemployed mother, the court imputed an annual income to her. Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the mother on appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the residency award, but reversed the imputation of income. The court found there was insufficient evidence the mother could earn the sum imputed in the local area. The decision was reversed and remanded with directions that income could not be imputed that exceeded the largest sum the mother had ever earned.

Reversed modification judgment due to constitutional due process violation.

The trial court converted a former wife’s rehabilitative alimony award to a permanent alimony award. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the former husband on appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled the former husband had been denied due process of law because the trial court had not permitted him to call all of his witnesses and to present closing argument. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and remanded for new trial before a different judge. After a new trial and second appeal – Pettry v. Pettry, 768 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) – all alimony was terminated.

Reversed conversion of rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony.

The former wife moved to modify a dissolution judgment by converting an award of rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony. After trial, but before making a final order, the trial court ordered the former husband to pay alimony, despite the expiration of the rehabilitation period.

Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the former husband on appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled the evidence was insufficient to support conversion of rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony. The trial court judgment was reversed and all alimony was terminated.

See the prior appeal leading to this new trial and judgment for the former husband. Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Reversed denial of wife’s interest in business, and special equity award to husband in marital home.

In this dissolution of marriage judgment the trial court denied the wife any interest in the husband’s business, denied permanent alimony, and granted the husband a special equity in the marital home. Ms. Lippincott effectively appealed this judgment for the wife.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of permanent alimony, but reversed the denial to the wife of an interest in the husband’s business, and reversed the award to the husband of a special equity in the marital home.

Five years later, the Fifth District altered the legal principle used in Rutland as to the corporate stock ruling. See Anson v. Anson, 772 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). However, this alteration did not change the result for the Rutland husband and wife.

Reversed dissolution judgment due to excessive awards against husband.

In this dissolution of marriage action, the trial court required the husband to pay a large portion of his net income to the wife for alimony and child support. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the husband on appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the judgment finding the combined awards were simply too high and improperly altered the husband’s life from prosperity to misfortune.

In accordance with the husband’s consent, the Florida Supreme Court reversed that portion of the Fifth District’s decision finding a trial court could not alter the tax laws by making the payor responsible for the alimony recipient’s taxes. Rykiel v. Rykiel, 838 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2003).

Reversed inadequate award of permanent alimony.

The trial court entered a judgment granting permanent alimony to the wife, but limited the amount to $750.00 per month. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife on appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal found the alimony amount inadequate. The wife’s needs were considerably greater than the sum awarded, and the husband had the ability to contribute much more than ordered.

The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the entire judgment including equitable distribution.

Reversed marital dissolution judgment due to extensive judicial questioning.

Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the husband on appeal from dissolution of marriage judgment.

The 5th DCA found the trial judge stepped over the line and had impermissibly become an advocate for the wife by extensively questioning the husband and his mother.

In addition, the appellate court found the trial court erred in failing to grant husband’s motion to recuse (remove) the trial court judge.

The trial court’s judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial before a new judge.

Reversed forfeiture of marital settlement payment.

The marital settlement agreement in this case required the husband to pay the wife two million dollars. The wife was to move from the marital residence within 60 days of the agreement, and a payment of $250,000.00 was due at that time. The wife was 12 days late, and the husband refused to make the required payment. The trial court denied the wife’s motion to enforce the marital settlement agreement.

Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife on appeal. The Fifth District reversed the trial court, and required the husband to make the $250,000.00 payment. The provision requesting the 60 day move from the marital home was a time for payment, rather than a condition for payment.

Reversed inadequate award of permanent alimony.

The trial court entered a judgment granting permanent alimony to the wife, but limited the amount to $750.00 per month. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife on appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal found the alimony amount inadequate. The wife’s needs were considerably greater than the sum awarded, and the husband had the ability to contribute much more than ordered.

The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the entire judgment including equitable distribution.

Reversed trial court’s failure to consider enhancement of business value.

In this dissolution of marriage action, the trial court found the stock in the husband’s business was a non-marital asset, and ruled the wife was not entitled to any portion of its value. The court made some additional rulings that led to the husband appealing this judgment and the wife cross appealing. Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the wife on appeal.

Among other rulings, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the award of rehabilitative alimony to the wife and the amount of all payments. In addition, the Court found the enhancement to the value of the husband’s business during the marriage was a marital asset that must be equitably distributed.

Reversed “woefully inadequate” permanent alimony.

The trial court awarded the wife of this long-term marriage a small amount in permanent alimony despite the husband’s substantial income as a Navy pilot. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the wife on appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal found the permanent alimony to be “woefully inadequate” to meet the wife’s needs. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the judgment with directions to award the wife an amount of permanent alimony that was commensurate with her needs and the husband’s ability to pay.