Error to award permanent alimony where evidence did not reflect permanent inability to work. Also error to award installment payments that spanned 20 years for equitable distribution of an asset

In Evans v. Evans, 39 FLW D51a, (Fla, 1st DCA) opinion filed December 31, 2013, In a case where unfortunately we are not given the term of marriage in the case, the court found error in awarding Wife permanent alimony where she had two year’s of college, had run a pressure washing business and did not show a permanent inability to become self-sustaining.
The equitable distribution issue in the case is also noteworthy: The DCA found that although Section 61.075(10) grants discretion to order ED of the marital assets payable in installments over time, it cannot do so such that one spouse is effectively deprived of the marital asset. In this case, the DCA found that the trial court's award of the singular major marital asset-the marital home, giving the wife 20 years to pay the husband his portion effectively deprived the husband of his share of the marital home.
As for the alimony award, the relative youth of the former wife, her two years' worth of college, and her experience of running a successful pressure-washing business (the recent loss of which, resulting from the BP® oil spill, ended in her receipt of $39,000 in compensation) is evidence that “ ‘does not reflect permanent inability on the part of the [former] wife to become self-sustaining.' ” Aresty v. Weinstein, 667 So. 2d 846, 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (quoting Wismar v. Wismar, 522 So. 2d 552, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)). See also Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So. 2d 927, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In regards to the division of the parties' equity in the marital home -- their singular major asset -- section 61.075(10), Florida Statutes, grants the trial court the discretion to order an equitable distribution of marital assets payable in installments over a fixed period of time. The present installment scenario, however, which spans twenty years, effectively deprives the former husband of his present one-half interest in the marital home. Cf.Posner v. Posner, 39 So. 3d 411, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding the trial court abused its discretion where the installment plan worked “[t]o deprive the husband of the majority of the assets of the marriage for the rest of his life”).
Accordingly, the award of permanent periodic alimony to the former wife and the equitable distribution installment plan concerning the marital home were REVERSED, and the cause remanded to the trial court.

Full opinion follows:



PER CURIAM. In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former husband argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the former wife $150 per month in permanent periodic alimony and in awarding her the use and possession of the marital residence, but directing her to buy out the husband’s one-half interest, worth $37,500, at the rate of $150 per month, plus interest, over the husband’s one-half interest, worth $37,500, at the rate of $150 per month, plus interest, over the course of twenty years. We agree that the trial court abused its discretion concerning these matters.