Douglas v. Douglas, 77-1691
| Decision Date | 02 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1691,77-1691 |
| Citation | 361 So.2d 212 |
| Parties | Barbara L. DOUGLAS, Appellant, v. John H. DOUGLAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George N. Meros and John M. Edman, of Meros, Coit, Edman & Meros, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Wayne O. Smith, of Wallace & Smith, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
Appellant wife challenges the financial provisions of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We focus primarily upon her contention that the trial court erred in failing to award her periodic permanent alimony.
In Lash v. Lash, 307 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), we held that when a long-term marriage is dissolved, a wife, if she demonstrates a need, is eligible to receive permanent (and not merely rehabilitative) alimony from a husband who has the demonstrated ability to pay. Here, as in Lash, we hold the trial court's failure to award permanent alimony was an abuse of discretion.
The Douglases were married in 1951. At the time of the final hearing husband was 46; wife 44. Wife testified that she has a degenerative disc in her back that causes some health problems; husband apparently enjoys good health.
The parties have four children, two of whom are grown. The two minor children, a 15-year-old daughter and a 12-year-old son, have some degree of learning disabilities which require professional attention. The daughter attends public school, but receives psychological counseling on the side. The son attends a special school which apparently caters to children with special educational needs.
During the marriage the parties maintained a high standard of living. They belonged to two country clubs, entertained often and traveled extensively.
Husband, a college graduate, is an officer and director of an automobile dealership in St. Petersburg, and receives a base salary of $28,800 per year. He receives substantial fringe benefits which include hospitalization insurance, use of a car, pension benefits, etc. In addition, he owns 18% Of the dealership, a source from which he receives substantial profits. In 1976 he reported a total income of $104,000. However, husband's testimony and that of the other stockholder in the dealership indicated the profits from the business declined during the first half of 1977, and could not be expected to produce such profits in the future.
During the litigation husband submitted a financial affidavit showing a net worth of $150,000; however, several months before he had submitted a financial statement to a bank reflecting a net worth of approximately $450,000. While husband's actual net worth is somewhat unclear, his assets coupled with his income demonstrate a sufficient ability on his part to pay permanent alimony.
The wife, in contrast, has been a homemaker since the first child was born a few years after the marriage. She attended college for one year, and currently holds a license to sell real estate. She has apparently done some modeling in the past, but has never realized any substantial income from her various avocations.
At the time of the final hearing husband and wife jointly owned the marital home and a condominium. The home had an appraised value of $45,000, but was encumbered by a mortgage of some $11,000. The condominium had been appraised at $52,000, but was subject to a $39,000 mortgage. They also jointly owned a one-third interest in twenty acres of unimproved real estate in Lee County, the value of which is not determinable from the record. Wife's only other assets were her car (which was heavily encumbered), a small amount of stock, and her interest in the furniture of the home and condominium.
In the final judgment of dissolution the wife was awarded the husband's interest in the marital home and a pick-up truck as lump-sum alimony. Husband was ordered to pay $550 per month for three years to wife as rehabilitative alimony. As mentioned previously, no periodic permanent alimony was awarded.
The judgment granted the wife custody of the two minor children, and ordered husband to pay $200 per month child support for each child. Husband was also ordered to pay the children's medical and dental expenses, as well as the cost of their special schooling and counseling. Finally, husband was required to maintain insurance on his life with the two minor children as beneficiaries until they attain their majority.
Wife is dissatisfied with the financial provisions of the judgment. Sh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wing v. Wing, 82-713
...entitle Mrs. Wing to an award of permanent alimony. See Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So.2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Recognizing that Mr. Wing's temporarily reduced income renders an additional award impractical at the present time, we reman......
-
Capps v. Capps, 79-2108
...Kvittem v. Kvittem, 365 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Thomas v. Thomas, 364 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See also Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Messer v. Messer, 342 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Lash v. Lash, 307 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Since the trial court......
-
Driscoll v. Driscoll, 88-1035
...on the issue of permanent periodic alimony and remanded to the trial court to set the amount of the award. See Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); and Hubble v. Hubble, 214 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). In all other respects I agree with the majority and would 1 We assume......
-
Eddy v. Eddy
...is insufficient in view of the past and present circumstances of the parties and of the needs of the wife. In Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978), the court We recognized that marital partners are to be treated on an equal basis; however, we noted that in a long-term ......