Black v. Black, 70-784
Decision Date | 11 May 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 70-784,70-784 |
Citation | 247 So.2d 775 |
Parties | Bernard Ralph BLACK, Appellant, v. Eleanor Louise BLACK, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hylan H. Kout, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Hendricks & Hendricks, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellant and appellee, both mature individuals, entered into a marriage of short duration which ended in a final judgment of divorce. The appellee was a woman of substantial assets; the appellant was a man of very meager means. In her amended pleading, the appellee alleged that she had suffered certain financial losses because of activities of the appellant, and prayed for relief as follows:
At the time of the entry of the final judgment, the appellee was granted a divorce and awarded lump sum alimony in the amount of $4,160.00. She was also awarded attorney's fees. The appellant has appealed and urges error in the award of lump sum alimony in light of the appellee's testimony that she did not desire alimony and the difference in the respective financial positions of the parties, relying on the following authorities: Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 367; Heller v. Heller, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 35; Pendelton v. Pendelton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 499; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 514. And, further, that the trial court erred in the award of attorney's fees.
We find merit in the appellant's first contention, and reverse the award of lump sum alimony. It was error for the trial judge to award the appellee lump sum alimony in an effort to reimburse her for any sums allegedly advanced during the coverture. Spears v. Spears, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 564. It has also been held that where the wife has substantial assets in a marriage of short duration, it is not incumbent on the trial judge that she be awarded alimony. Chaires v. Chaires, 1864, 10 Fla. 308; McCarter v. McCarter, 131 Fla. 561, 179 So. 760; Kahn v. Kahn, supra; Gordon v. Gordon, supra. This should be particularly true where she indicates that she doesn't desire alimony.
As to the attorney's fees, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to make an award of attorney's fees to a wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Muller v. Muller, 88-1689
...434 So.2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Rey v. Rey, 279 So.2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), dismissed, 291 So.2d 5 (Fla.1974); Black v. Black, 247 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Spears v. Spears, 148 So.2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). The trial court therefore erred in awarding the wife the husband's inter......
-
Hackney v. Hackney
...an abuse of discretion. See Posner v. Posner, 257 So.2d 530 (Fla.1972); Posner v. Posner, 233 So.2d 381 (Fla.1970); Black v. Black, 247 So.2d 775 (3d DCA Fla.1971); Costa v. Costa, 245 So.2d 123 (2d DCA In the present instance the wife's statement that she did not need alimony was unrebutte......
-
Emery v. Emery, 82-994
...PART; REVERSED IN PART. COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. 1 Rey v. Rey, 279 So.2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Black v. Black, 247 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Spears v. Spears, 148 So.2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA ...
- Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority v. Edwards