Astor v. Astor
| Decision Date | 12 September 1956 |
| Citation | 89 So.2d 645 |
| Parties | Dolores Fullman ASTOR, Appellant, v. John Jacob ASTOR, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Anderson, Scott, McCarthy & Preston, Robert H. Anderson and Wm. C. Steel, Miami, for appellant.
W. F. Parker, Miami, for appellee.
In this case the appellant wife brings before us for review a circuit court decree awarding her alimony unconnected with causes of divorce under Section 65.10, Florida Statutes 1953, F.S.A. The only question involved in the appeal is the amount of alimony awarded by the lower court, which appellant seeks to have increased.
Dolores Fullman Astor and John Jacob Astor were married on August 6, 1954, at Arlington, Virginia, and immediately embarked upon an elaborate honeymoon trip to Europe. Some six weeks later, upon the docking of the ship in which they returned to the United States, the parties separated and have continued to live separate and apart. On November 22, 1954, appellant filed a complaint against her husband alleging separation through appellee's fault 'because of (his) threats to inflict bodily injury on her and because of other misconduct of such an intimate nature that the Plaintiff would prefer not to allege it but of which Defendant is fully aware', and appellee's failure and refusal, since the separation, 'to give her any money to maintain herself or to contribute to her maintenance.'
Appellee responded to the complaint with an answer denying that he was validly married to appellant or that he was guilty of the misconduct charged in the complaint. With his answer appellee included a counterclaim asking that his marriage to appellant be annulled on the grounds of a prior subsisting marriage and fraud and deceit on the part of appellant, or that he be granted an absolute divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty.
After hearing the evidence, the chancellor found that the parties were living apart through the fault of appellee, that appellee was under a duty to support his wife, that he was estopped to deny the validity of their marriage, and that appellee failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence either his residence in the State of Florida or his charge of extreme Cruelty. So, despite his announced opinion that the appellant was 'motivated and dominated by greed for money' and his rejection of her 'despicable narration of imagined incidents which she said had occurred in the privacy of staterooms and hotel suites during the honeymoon,' the chancellor dismissed the counterclaim and ordered the husband to pay his wife for her support and maintenance the sum of $75 per week, costs of the suit, and a reasonable fee to the wife's attorneys, which he found to be $12,500.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether under these facts the amount of support money decreed for the appellant falls within the limits of judicial discretion that may be properly exercised by a court of equity under Section 65.10, Florida Statutes 1953, F.S.A. We do not have here some of the usual criteria that would serve as a guide. There is no question of the husband's ability to pay any reasonable sum awarded to his wife. The wife's testimony presents no picture of unusual need on her part. The parties lived together only during their honeymoon, and the wife admits (and we agree) that her husband should not be charged with maintaining her in the same luxury that these parties enjoyed during that period. Cf. Pawley v. Pawley, Fla., 46 So.2d 464, 28 A.L.R.2d 1358; Kaufman v. Kaufman, Fla., 63 So.2d 196, where we recognized the right of the husband to determine his family's standard of living. We must, therefore, look further for guidance in the present case.
The appellant is twenty-six years of age, attended the University of Chicago for two years, was employed in a number of positions prior to her marriage, and is presently living with her parents. She has no money or independent means of support. As a result of osteomyelitis, incurred at an early age, she has an infirmity of the left leg and spine but is capable of gainful employment. She has in the past earned as much as $65 per week, although she is not now employed.
John Jacob Astor is forty-two years of age. His net worth is four and three-quarter millions. Before taxes, his 1954 income was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belcher v. Belcher
...144 (Fla.1964); McMullen v. McMullen, 185 So.2d 191 (Fla.App.2d 1966); and Fern v. Fern, 207 So.2d 291 (Fla.App.3d 1968).3 Astor v. Astor, 89 So.2d 645 (Fla.1956).4 Contractors Contract Noy 5948 v. Morris, 154 Fla. 497, 18 So.2d 247 (Fla.1944).5 Ponder, Executor v. Graham, 4 Fla. 23, 30 (18......
-
Sisson v. Sisson
...Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 291; Sommers v. Sommers, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 744; Kaufman v. Kaufman, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 196; Astor v. Astor, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 645. But see also: Kahn v. Kahn, Fla., 78 So.2d 367, for a limitation on the amount of alimony award. At 226. When the wife is seeking......
-
Firestone v. Firestone
...Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 291; Sommers v. Sommers, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 744; Kaufman v. Kaufman, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 196; Astor v. Astor, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 645. But see also: Kahn v. Kahn, Fla., 78 So.2d 367, for a limitation on the amount of alimony Sub judice, the husband's answer to his......
-
Keller v. Keller
...that the husband pay the mortgages on both.2 The supreme court opinion reviewing the initial separate maintenance decree, Astor v. Astor, 89 So.2d 645 (Fla.1956), did not discuss estoppel, and, according to the Third District's opinion, no cross-appeal on that basis was ...