Ontario D. Johnson v. Lavelle P. Johnson

── Ontario D. Johnson v. Lavelle P. Johnson ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ONTARIO D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. LAVELLE P. JOHNSON and ARMAJ INVESTMENTS LLC, Appellees. No. 4D2025-1653 [June 3, 2026] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Luis Delgado, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 502022DR008271XXXXSB. Richard James Boyle of Richard J. Boyle Esq., LLC d/b/a The Boyle Law Firm, Wellington, for appellant. Dodger Livingstone Arp of Law Office of Dodger Arp, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Lavelle P. Johnson. MAY, J. The former husband appeals a final dissolution judgment. He argues the trial court erred in allowing the former wife to pay an equalization payment over the course of nearly thirty-four years. We agree and reverse. • The Facts The former wife petitioned for dissolution of marriage. The marital estate consisted in part of two real properties. The former wife owned the marital residence, which the parties stipulated was worth $724,000, subject to a mortgage. The former husband owned a separate property through an entity he controlled, which the trial court valued at $230,000. Evidence revealed the former husband’s property was affected by significant code-enforcement liens exceeding $200,000, which were continuing to accrue. The trial court treated only $61,975 of those liens as a contingent liability for equitable distribution purposes. The court divided that amount equally, capping the former wife’s share at $30,987.50. The trial court noted the former wife’s obligation could be reduced if the former husband later succeeded in mitigating the liens. The former husband had more than $2,000 in monthly discretionary income after expenses. The former wife had about $200 per month in discretionary income. The trial court relied on this disparity in structuring the equalization payment. In the final judgment, the trial court awarded each party his or her respective property. Because this distribution result was unequal, the court ordered the former wife to pay the former husband an equalization payment of $133,557.00. After offsetting attorney’s fees awarded to the former wife, the net equalization payment was $121,299.50. The trial court found the former wife lacked the ability to pay this amount in a lump sum and declined to require her to refinance or liquidate assets. Instead, the trial court ordered the former wife to pay the former husband $300 per month until the obligation was satisfied in full. At that payment rate, the equalization award will take approximately thirty-three years and nine months to be paid in full. The former husband, who is currently fifty years old, would not receive the final payment until approximately age eighty-four. From the final judgment, the former husband now appeals. • The Analysis The former husband argues the trial court’s payment plan effectively deprives him of his share of the marital estate during his lifetime. The former wife responds the trial court reasonably tailored the payment plan to her limited cash flow. She further argues that payment duration alone does not make an installment plan unreasonable, and the former husband was not deprived of value because he retained the other property. The distribution of marital assets and liabilities is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980). Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2025), begins with the presumption that marital assets and liabilities should be distributed equally unless a justification exists for an unequal distribution. The statute authorizes the trial court to order an equalization payment “in a lump sum or in installments.” § 61.075(10),