Bordman v. Bordman, s. 69--360

• Decision Date: 17 February 1970
• Docket Number: 69--361,Nos. 69--360,s. 69--360
• Citation: 231 So.2d 543
• Parties: Bernard S. BORDMAN, Appellant, v. Sara Lee BORDMAN, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 543

231 So.2d 543

Bernard S. BORDMAN, Appellant, v. Sara Lee BORDMAN, Appellee.

Nos. 69--360, 69--361.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 17, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1970.

Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Hunkey & Trenam; Michael J. Cappucio and Richard Banick, Miami, for appellant.

Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

CHARLES CARROLL, Judge.

This appeal was filed by the defendant (husband) from an order relating to child support entered in a divorce suit.

The parties were divorced by a decree of the circuit court of Dade County on December 22, 1964. Custody of their two children was awarded to the wife, with rights of visitation granted to the husband. The decree approved an agreement which the parties had entered into for property settlement, alimony and child support. The agreement provided for the husband to pay alimony in the amount of $250 per month, and to pay $125 per month for support of each of the two children. The agreement disclosed that additional monies for the support of the children (in the amount of $166 per month for each) were being received from a trust created by the parents of the husband for that purpose, and the agreement of the parties provided that said monies should be used by the wife 'solely for the benefit of said children.'

It was recited in the agreement that the husband was serving a residency in a hospital in preparation for engaging in medical practice; that in order presently to meet the requirements of the agreement for alimony and support it was necessary for him to obtain 'financial assistance,' and it was provided therein that his ability 'to render substantial support for the wife and their minor children' could not be determined until approximately one year after he had commenced private medical practice. Accordingly it was agreed that the support provisions set out in the agreement should prevail only until June 30, 1968, and that if the parties could not agree on support amounts to be paid after that date, the same should be determined by the court. Consistent with that provision, jurisdiction was reserved in the decree to make future orders relating to custody, support and as to the settlement agreement.

On November 12, 1968, the husband filed a motion alleging the parties were unable to agree on the amount to be paid by him for child support, and requested that the amounts thereof be determined by the court. The wife filed a response to the motion, reciting that she had remarried, terminating the husband's obligation to pay alimony, averring that the ages of the children then were 12 and 8 years, and reciting facts and circumstances from which she represented that the amount needed for support of the two children was $1,171.79 per month.

Following a hearing on the motion, the court entered an order on April 15, 1969, which is the subject of this appeal. In addition to provisions requiring the husband to pay for private schooling, summer camps and the medical and dental expenses...