Durden v. Durden
| Decision Date | 31 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 2393,2393 |
| Citation | 137 So.2d 29 |
| Parties | William A. DURDEN, Appellant, v. Patricia DURDEN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert H. Willis, of Skelton & Willis, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
George N. Meros, of Masterson, Meros, & Lloyd, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
In a final decree in favor of the wife, granting a divorce to the parties, the Chancellor also decreed:
That the husband pay to the wife alimony of $250.00 per month That the husband pay to the wife the sum of $250.00 per month, per child, for maintenance of the two minor children of the parties;
The use of the home and furnishings to the wife so long as she has custody of the children, and ordered the husband to pay the taxes and the mortgage on that property;
That certain bank savings accounts, established by the father jointly with each child, were the sole property of the child named in the account; and
That the husband pay the wife's attorneys fees of $4,000.00.
The decree also made other property divisions which are not here controverted.
These parties were married in 1954. Two sons were born respectively, 1955 and 1957. The husband's income rapidly increased to the point that in the year 1959 it was approximately $40,000.00 gross. In February, 1960, the wife filed her complaint for separate maintenance and child support. At the final hearing, it was amended to pray for a divorce. The husband answered and counterclaimed for divorce, but offered no testimony in support of the counterclaim.
The husband complains: That all of the sums of money which he was ordered to pay are excessive; That although specifically requested, the Chancellor failed to make allocation, between alimony and maintenance of the children, of the sums ordered to be paid for mortgage and taxes on the home; That the Chancellor erred in holding that the joint savings accounts were the property of the individual child named in the joint account; and, The Court erred in 'retaining jurisdiction of the cause to resolve issues between the adult parties litigant.'
In her testimony, the wife itemized the sums of money which she claimed to be necessary for maintenance and support of herself and the two children. The sum of these items was $689.50 per month. The items so specified did not include extra-ordinary medical expenses, renewals and replacements of household furnishings, school expenses of the children, nor income taxes, so it cannot be said that the Chancellor awarded more than the wife's claimed requirements. Based upon his 1959 income, after the husband pays all payments, except attorneys fees, he will have remaining approximately $16,000.00. At the time of taking the testimony, he anticipated a substantial reduction in his income for the year 1960, but in the findings of the Chancellor, he says:
'* * * and while there was some evidence that his future earnings might decline, that is a matter which will have to await further order of the Court when and if such conditions occur.'
The awards were made on the basis of his 1959 income; and if his subsequent income shows material reduction, the husband may petition for modification. On the questions pertaining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinkle v. State
...North Shore Bank v. Shea, 148 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Josephson v. Kuhner, 139 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); Durden v. Durden, 137 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Sullivan v. Chase Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n, 119 So.2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Helfritz v. Riegle, 24 Fla.Supp. 95 (Cir.C......
-
D. R.-T. v. O. M.
...basis of consideration of the Court for future modification of the decree. Platt v. Platt, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 253; Durden v. Durden, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 29; Boyle v. Boyle, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 566; 89 A.L.R.2d 7. In the case sub judice, if and when the child becomes enrolled in......
-
Bazzano v. Bazzano
...131 Fla. 219, 179 So. 414; Mouyois v. Mouyois, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 718; Strozier v. Strozier, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 134; Durden v. Durden, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 29. Appellee accepts the limitation on jurisdiction which is urged as the basis of appellant's position, but appellee urges tha......
-
Simonet v. Simonet, 72--364
...in order to secure a reversal of the award of child support. Burnett v. Burnett, 197 So.2d 854 (Fla.App.1967). In Durden v. Durden, 137 So.2d 29 (Fla.App.1962) the court determined that an award of $250 per child per month, together with the use of the former marital home, was not an abuse ......