456 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1984), 64514, Vandergriff v. Vandergriff

Docket Nº:64514.
Citation:456 So.2d 464
Opinion Judge:Author: Shaw
Party Name:Jack C. VANDERGRIFF, Petitioner, v. Wallyce V. VANDERGRIFF, Respondent.
Attorney:David H. Levin and Richard E. Scherling of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes and Mitchell, Pensacola, Florida, for Petitioner.
Case Date:September 13, 1984
Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Page 464

456 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1984)

Jack C. VANDERGRIFF, Petitioner,


Wallyce V. VANDERGRIFF, Respondent.

No. 64514.

Supreme Court of Florida.

September 13, 1984

Page 465

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...

To continue reading