Bildner v. Bildner, s. 68--154
| Decision Date | 04 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 68--154,68--155,68--173,s. 68--154 |
| Citation | 219 So.2d 749 |
| Parties | Benjamin BILDNER, Appellant, v. Mabel B. BILDNER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Klein, Moore & Kline, Miami Beach, Jepeway & Gassen, Miami, Joe N. Unger, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Nicholson, Howard, Brawner & Lovett, Miami, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellant Benjamin Bildner was the defendant below, in a suit brought against him by his wife, the appellee Mabel B. Bildner, for divorce and alimony. Three appeals filed by the husband were consolidated here. Appeal No. 154 is from the final decree, No. 155 is from the amended final decree, and No. 173 is from a separate order entered for suit money and attorney fees.
The cause was vigorously contested. A record of approximately 1,000 pages was constructed in the trial court, including some 800 pages of testimony. Trial before the court resulted in a decree and an amended decree which granted a divorce, and which ordered the defendant husband to pay the wife $40,000 in cash; transfer to her his interest in the residence premises (which they had owned as tenants by the entireties); continue to pay premiums ($4,110.50 annually) on a $50,000 insurance policy on his life, the proceeds of which were to be payable to the wife on the husband's death; and to pay $18,500 for the wife's attorney fees.
The appellant does not seek reversal of the granting of a divorce against him but contends that error was committed in four respects: first, in awarding alimony to the wife, contending the evidence showed the wife was guilty of adultery; second, by setting aside and failing to observe the provisions of an antenuptial agreement; third, by divesting the husband of his interest in the residence property; and fourth, that the amount allowed for attorney fees was excessive.
On the issue at trial relating to adultery, it was found that the husband's charge of adultery of the wife had not been proved. On reviewing the conflicting evidence relating to that issue, we observe no reason to disturb that ruling of the trial court. It was within the province of the trier of facts to resolve the conflicts in the evidence, and his finding has not been shown to be without evidentiary support or to be against the manifest weight of the evidence on that issue.
No error was committed by ignoring the antenuptial agreement, as the circumstances relating to the making thereof clearly were such as to render it unavailing, on authority of Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 17.
In the amended final decree, the trial judge held that alimony should be awarded in lump sum, in view of the circumstances presented. Those included the advanced age of the husband (he was 75, the wife 49), recent transfers made by the husband to trusts and by gifts, which had reduced his worth from an amount in excess of $1,000,000 to approximately $400,000, and the fact, as found by the trial court, citing Yandell v. Yandell, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 554, that the husband had financial ability to respond to an award in gross. After having so held that lump sum alimony should be awarded, the amended final decree, in separate successive paragraphs, ordered that the plaintiff wife be granted a divorce; that the defendant husband pay her $40,000 in cash; that the husband deed over to the wife his interest in the residence premises, thereby making and declaring her to be the sole owner of such property; that the husband pay taxes and expenses of upkeep of the property and transfer to the wife his interest in the furnishings and personalty thereon; and that the husband transfer his interest in certain personal property to the wife. In those paragraphs directing the husband to make the cash payment and to transfer property to the wife, the term 'alimony' or 'lump sum alimony' was not used.
Upon viewing those provisions of the amended decree in light of the ruling which preceded them that lump sum alimony would be awarded, we hold the contention of the appellant that the trial court committed error in divesting him of his interest in jointly owned property, must be rejected.
The appellant relies on the rule that as to property owned by them as tenants by the entireties, in the absence of the wife establishing an equity in the husband's interest sufficient to justify the transfer thereof to her (Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727, 728; Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So.2d 356), upon decreeing divorce of the parties the court should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaney v. Chaney
...cannot be ordered absent statutory authorization. See, e.g., Slaton v. Slaton, 428 So.2d 347 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983); Bildner v. Bildner, 219 So.2d 749 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969); Gordon v. Gordon, 71 App.Div.2d 911, 419 N.Y.S.2d 749 (1979); Enos v. Enos, 41 App.Div.2d 642, 340 N.Y.S.2d 783 (197......
-
Gorman v. Gorman, 80-338
...trial court's discretion to award the property to either as lump sum alimony. Reid v. Reid, 68 So.2d 821 (Fla.1953); Blidner v. Blidner, 219 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). In determining the nature and amount of alimony to be awarded, the court must give due consideration to several factors.......
-
Raney v. Raney
...their power to direct that the husband in a divorce case maintain life insurance for the benefit of the wife. Bildner v. Bildner, 219 So.2d 749 (Fla.App., 1969); Cooley v. Cooley, 320 Mich. 209, 30 N.W.2d 840 (1948); Shomaker v. Shomaker, 166 Neb. 164, 88 N.W.2d 221 (1958); Williams v. Will......
-
Eagan v. Eagan
...DCA 1975); Wilbur v. Wilbur, 299 So.2d 99 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Faidley v. Faidley, 298 So.2d 425 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Bildner v. Bildner, 219 So.2d 749 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Putman v. Putman, 154 So.2d 717 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). A father can be required to maintain life insurance on his own life for t......