Calligarich v. Calligarich, 71--412
| Decision Date | 15 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--412,71--412 |
| Citation | 256 So.2d 60 |
| Parties | Elizabeth CALLIGARICH, Appellant, v. Frank CALLIGARICH, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edmund B. Sigman, of Neale & Sigman, Melbourne, for appellant.
L. W. Barnard, Satellite Beach, for appellee.
Plaintiff wife objects to the alimony and property settlement provisions contained in a divorce judgment.
That decree awarded plaintiff lump sum alimony in the sum of $3,600 to be paid $200 monthly for eighteen months. Defendant husband was found to have special equities in the marital domicile, owned as a tenancy by the entirety, and was awarded its complete ownership. We feel that neither of these determinations were supported by the facts or law. We reverse them.
The extracted salient facts reveal that plaintiff is sixty-one years old and permanently disabled. Her sole income of less than $100 monthly is derived from Social Security disability payments. Defendant is seventy-one years old, retired, and draws $832 monthly in pension payments, plus free medical care and commissary privileges. The marriage endured sixteen years.
It is our opinion that, due to plaintiff's health, age, lack of assets and income, it is highly unlikely she will be able to support herself in eighteen months. Lump sum alimony is justified only where it serves a reasonable purpose, such as rehabilitation, or where the marriage's duration or the parties' financial position would make such an award advantageous to both. The wife's need and the husband's ability are still the correct equation to follow. See 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 161; Schultz v. Schultz, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 310, and Arrington v. Arrington, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 473. We therefore conclude that plaintiff's alimony should be made permanent, subject, of course, to possible modification in the event of a legally sufficient change in the circumstances of the parties.
Defendant husband was also awarded the marital domicile based on his alleged special equities therein. The marital domicile had been purchased using the proceeds from the sale of the couple's Virginia home, which had been transferred to an estate by the entireties by defendant shortly after the 1954 marriage. An ordinary conveyance to the entireties of one spouse's property is presumed a gift. Such a presumption is not easily overcome. The case at hand offers no facts to support this presumption's rebuttal. See Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Ball
...1975); Hanzelik v. Hanzelik, 294 So.2d 116 (Fla.App. 4th 1974); Davis v. Davis, 282 So.2d 655 (Fla.App. 4th 1973); Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So.2d 60 (Fla.App. 4th 1971); Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 252 So.2d 825 (Fla.App. 4th 1971).10 We simply hold that it does not advance the resolut......
-
Cornelius v. Cornelius
...that the other spouse has the ability to provide for those needs. Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1976); Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA We think it necessary, because of the apparent confusion over what criteria ......
-
Pfohl v. Pfohl
...position would make such an award advantageous to both parties. Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So.2d 60 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). The alimony awards herein fit these traditional patterns and purposes for The wife argues that the husband's $200,000 ......
-
Krieger v. Krieger, CC--64
...DCA 1974); Gall v. Gall, 336 So.2d 10 (Fla.2nd DCA 1976); Fugassi v. Fugassi, 332 So.2d 695 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So.2d 60 (Fla.4th DCA 1971); Sharpe v. Sharpe, 267 So.2d 665 (Fla.3rd DCA 1972); Palmer v. Palmer, 338 So.2d 86 (Fla.1st DCA Additional factors to ......