Vandergriff v. Vandergriff

Decision Date13 September 1984
Docket NumberNo. 64514,64514
Citation456 So.2d 464
PartiesJack C. VANDERGRIFF, Petitioner, v. Wallyce V. VANDERGRIFF, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

David H. Levin and Richard E. Scherling of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, Pensacola, for petitioner.

John L. Myrick of Kinsey, Myrick, Troxel & Johnson, Pensacola, for respondent.

SHAW, Justice.

This is a petition to review Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 438 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) on the ground of conflict with various decisions of this Court and other district courts of appeal. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

This cause presents the issue of whether the district court applied the correct standard of review in reversing the judgment of the trial court in a dissolution action. We hold that it did not.

In its judgment dissolving the Vandergriff marriage, the trial court ordered, inter alia, that petitioner husband pay respondent wife $300 per month rehabilitative alimony for a period of three years, and pay child support of $180 per month and private school tuition for a minor child of fifteen years of age until the child reached her majority, died, or married. The respondent was granted ownership of a car and exclusive use of the unencumbered family home until the minor child reached her majority or the respondent died or remarried. Petitioner was granted ownership of a truck and was ordered to accomplish certain repairs of the family home, and to pay real estate taxes on the family home and adjacent lot. Petitioner was to receive credit for sums expended repairing the family home and paying real estate taxes. The evidence showed that the respondent was a college graduate, had not worked at gainful employment for some twenty-six years, but was active in family, community and personal interests, suffered from some medical ills arising primarily from the strains of the dissolution proceedings, and did not desire employment, preferring that petitioner support her. The total income of the parties, approximately $3,300 per month, comes from petitioner's employment. The parties had been married for thirty-two years and had two adult daughters, both college graduates, who lived at home with respondent, along with respondent's mother who had lived with the family for over twenty years.

On appeal, the district court reversed the award of $300 per month in rehabilitative alimony and remanded with directions that the award be designated as permanent alimony and increased to reflect the needs of respondent and the ability of petitioner to pay. All three judges agreed that the sum of alimony was inadequate, but split three ways as to whether it was error to award rehabilitative instead of permanent alimony. Writing for the court, Judge Shivers held it was error not to award permanent alimony; Judge Robert Smith saw no error, per se, in awarding rehabilitative alimony; and Judge Nimmons opined that it was error but only because the trial judge failed to support the decision with factual findings. The case thus comes to us in the posture of having been examined by four judges, all of whom disagree in whole or part with each other. The parties have dutifully presented us with various legal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • State v. Stephens
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 6, 1991
    ...if it is correct for any reason even though an incorrect reason is given by the trial court for its holding. See Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); In re Yohn's Estate, 238 So.2d 290 (Fla.1970); MacNeill v. O'Neal, 238 So.2d 614 (Fla.1970); Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 S......
  • Rook v. Rook, 83-607
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 21, 1985
    ...this area as child support, given a similar net income, I think the $130.00 per month award was facially insufficient. Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); Kozelski v. Kozelski, 448 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Peak v. Peak, 411 So.2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA In addition, I ques......
  • Villaverde v. Villaverde, s. 88-2003
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 13, 1989
    ...Under these circumstances, no reasonable person could find that the rehabilitative alimony award was adequate. 3 Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); Rovenger v. Rovenger, 474 So.2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA Third, we hold that the trial court committed error in calculating the alim......
  • Martin v. Martin, 84-920
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 26, 1985
    ...and whether no reasonable person could agree with the appealed order. Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So.2d 542 (Fla.1985); Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Trial judges have very broad discretion in setting child support in Fl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT