Chastain v. Chastain

• Decision Date: 25 May 1954
• Citation: 73 So.2d 66
• Parties: CHASTAIN v. CHASTAIN.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 66

73 So.2d 66

CHASTAIN v. CHASTAIN.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.

May 25, 1954.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1954.

Wideman, Caldwell, Pacetti & Robinson and Paty, Downey & Paty, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Burns Middleton & Rogers, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

MATHEWS, Justice.

This is a certiorari proceeding to review an order of the Chancellor modifying a final decree awarding alimony to the petitioner in a divorce suit.

The final decree of divorce awarding alimony was entered on September 17, 1952. In that final decree the Chancellor found that the petitioner here was entitled to alimony and that the respondent was a man of substantial means. He was the owner of one of the finest cattle ranches in the country composed of about 31,500 acres of land of a market value of approximately $1,500,000 which did not include a herd of approximately 2,100 herd of cattle and other assets worth approximately $107,000, with total liabilities of approximately $70,000. The Chancellor awarded to the petitioner in that final decree $700 per month as alimony and in addition thereto he awarded to her a residence, stating as follows:

'* * * She should have the Hi Mount residence. She might well rent it during the season and gain a net of several thousand dollars. She should have a place so that a home can be provided for the boy, when he lives with her. Though the maintenance costs of this home will be high, that can be offset by this added income which she might receive, should she retain the property and rent part or all of it.'

In the order modifying the final decree, the Chancellor stated:

'* * * If the alimony payments should be reduced one-half--that is to $4200.00 a year--this would leave the plaintiff with a gross income of between $9,000.00 and $10,000.00 a year, in the event she is able to continue to rent her home. * * *'

In the final decree, with reference to alimony, the Chancellor found:

'* * * The defendant is a man of substantial means. To determine his ability, one must consider the nature of his capital assets, as well as his income. He is quite able to provide for her in the station of life to which these parties have been accustomed to live during recent years, and he is willing to do so.'

The record shows that the respondent testified prior to the final decree of divorce that he was then operating the ranch at a loss. It is therefore apparent that income was not the controlling factor in fixing the amount of alimony but that it was fixed upon that statement of the Chancellor, 'To determine his ability, one must consider the nature of his capital assets, as well as his income.'

There was no appeal from the final decree of divorce awarding alimony and the time for appeal has long since expired. The needs, abilities and faculties of the parties were settled in that final decree and are now res adjudicata, except that of modifying the decree as to alimony in accordance with the public policy of the State as it existed and as it is now declared to be by F.S. § 65.15, F.S.A.

As was stated by Mr. Justice Terrell in the case of Schiff v. Schiff, Fla., 54 So.2d 36, the Chancellor may on examination of the husband's sources of income modify alimony decrees 'if there is a strong showing that the husband's ability to pay has depreciated.' A final decree of divorce awarding alimony should not be modified as to alimony without a strong showing that the...