Florence v. Florence, XX-24
| Decision Date | 26 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. XX-24,XX-24 |
| Citation | 400 So.2d 1018 |
| Parties | Gary W. FLORENCE, Appellant, v. Barbara J. FLORENCE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Allen W. Lindsay, Jr., of Lindsay & Andrews, Milton, and James P. Judkins of Davis & Judkins, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Louis F. Ray, Pensacola, for appellee.
The husband appeals that portion of the final judgment of dissolution awarding to the wife as lump sum alimony the marital home titled in his name. He contends the wife did not prove her need for alimony and the husband's ability to pay it, and alternatively, he urges the trial court abused its discretion in the amount of alimony awarded. We agree the award was not justified under the facts of this case and reverse.
The husband purchased the marital home for $28,000.00 approximately six months before his October 9, 1976 marriage to appellee. The home is currently valued at $35,000.00 and the mortgage amount owed is $27,160.00. While they were married, both parties worked and deposited their money in a joint checking account from which they paid their expenses. One child, a girl, was born during the parties three year marriage. At the time of the final hearing, the wife, a bookkeeper, was earning a net income of $577.28 monthly. The husband, a helicopter pilot flying supplies to offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, was making a net income of $1,858.00 per month.
In the final judgment, the trial court awarded the wife custody of the minor child, $50.00 per week child support, and the husband was ordered to pay all medical and dental expenses for the child. The wife was awarded title to a 1978 Dodge Challenger and the husband required to make the monthly payments which amounted to $207.00 per month for 30 months. As lump sum alimony, the wife was awarded the marital home and the husband was ordered to make the mortgage payments in the amount of $243.00 monthly. The parties joint funds were split equally and the furniture and furnishings in the marital home divided with the wife receiving the bulk of the personal property.
We recognize the restraints placed upon our review of lump sum alimony awards by the Supreme Court in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). Nevertheless, we find that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the award of the marital home to the wife as lump sum alimony was inequitable and unjustified and constituted an abuse of discretion. The wife is 31 years old, in excellent health, and this was a marriage of short...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Martinez
...are so frequently ordered that they have become a generally accepted principle of the law of divorce. See also Florence v. Florence, 400 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (award of exclusive use and possession of marital home until wife remarries or child reaches eighteen or otherwise becomes ......
-
Frechter v. Frechter, s. 88-1723
...his right to reimbursement of his premarital contribution. A similar solution was determined to be appropriate in Florence v. Florence, 400 So.2d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). While we agree that exclusive occupancy should be affirmed, we find that the order should be sent back to the tri......
-
Cabrera v. Cabrera, 85-1024
...DCA 1982); Pino v. Pino, 418 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Bullard v. Bullard, 413 So.2d 1238 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Florence v. Florence, 400 So.2d 1018 (Fla.1st DCA 1981); Zeller v. Zeller, 396 So.2d 1177 (Fla.4th DCA 1981); Farrington v. Farrington, 390 So.2d 461 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), review di......
-
Peterson v. Peterson, 860179-CA
...answered the question affirmatively." Cabrera v. Cabrera, 484 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986). In Florence v. Florence, 400 So.2d 1018 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981), the Florida appellate court found that the award of exclusive possession of property was directly connected to the obligatio......