Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT RUPERT A. PADMORE, Appellant, v. MARVENE J. PADMORE and BOUNDBROOK ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellees. No. 2D20-3312 March 23, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Denise Pomponio, Judge. Tarya A. Tribble of Tribble Law Center, P.A., Riverview, for Appellant. Lawrence J. Hodz of Cortes Hodz Family Law & Mediation, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee Marvene J. Padmore. No appearance for remaining Appellee. BLACK, Judge. Rupert A. Padmore, the former husband, appeals from the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Marvene J. Padmore, the former wife. We affirm the judgment insofar as it dissolves the parties' marriage; however, finding merit in one of the former husband's arguments, we reverse the remainder of the judgment and remand for reconsideration of the equitable distribution scheme and alimony determination. The former husband correctly argues that the trial court erred in including the former husband's 2018 federal tax refund, in the amount of $18,000, as a distributable marital asset. The dissolution petition was filed in 2017; thus, the 2018 tax refund was the former husband's nonmarital asset. See § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat. (2017). Although the former wife concedes this error, she contends that it was harmless in the overall equitable distribution scheme in this case, citing McCall v. McCall, 386 So. 2d 275, 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We cannot agree. The equitable distribution scheme included an equalizing payment which will necessarily change when 2 the $18,000 is excluded from distributable assets.1 Further, the trial court awarded the equalizing payment to the former wife as lump sum alimony such that the alimony award is also impacted by the court's error in including the refund as a marital asset.2 Accordingly, the equitable distribution scheme and alimony determination must be reconsidered on remand. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 1 In that regard, we note that the court and the parties appear to have incorrectly identified the full difference between the former wife's assets and the former husband's assets, $93,404.11, as the equalizing payment due to the former husband from the former wife. 2 The trial court is reminded that lump sum alimony "is not a type of alimony but rather a method of allocating payments—any form of alimony can be awarded either as a lump sum or as a periodic payment." Nugent v. Nugent, 225 So. 3d 994, 995 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2015)); see also Gardiner v. Gardiner, 207 So. 3d 987, 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("[W]here a trial court makes an award of lump sum alimony, it shall first determine whether the award is necessary for support or to effect an equitable distribution of marital property." (alteration in original) (quoting Guida v. Guida, 870 So. 2d 222, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))). 3