Fried v. Fried, 78-1287
| Decision Date | 19 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1287,78-1287 |
| Citation | 375 So.2d 46 |
| Parties | Curt F. FRIED, Appellant, v. Ruth Ellen FRIED, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Chad P. Pugatch and Earl Faircloth of Houston, Faircloth, Cooper & Easthope, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Lawrence D. Martin of Vega, Brown & Nichols, P. A., Naples, for appellee.
Appellant Curt Fried takes this appeal from a final order awarding appellee, his former wife, inter alia, lump sum alimony in the amount of $67,500; child support of $300 per month during the child's minority and his interest in certain jointly owned resort property known as Luxor Manor. The order further awarded him his former wife's interest in the jointly owned marital home.
Appellant argues that the court committed reversible error in granting appellee lump sum alimony in an amount nearly double his annual income, when he is employed, and far beyond his ability to respond. Moreover, he contends the award of his interest in the resort property compounds his inability to pay this amount.
The parties were married for 18 years and are parents of one son who was 16 years old at the time of dissolution. Appellant is 56 years old and appellee is 58 years old. Appellant worked as a seaman for six months per year and earned approximately $30,000 annually from that occupation. Between shipping trips he worked with his wife and son at their summer resort in New York. Appellee had no outside employment during the marriage.
The court dissolved the marriage in 1977, but retained jurisdiction to determine property rights and support. In the meantime the wife was awarded $750 a month temporary alimony. Subsequently, additional testimony was taken, and the court entered the order which appellant now contests.
After the marriage was dissolved, appellant remarried. His new wife is a person of financial means who has provided all his living expenses since their marriage and advanced him the money necessary to pay the temporary alimony. Appellant has not worked for almost two years. On this subject he testified:
Q Have you sought employment since April 16th?
A No, I have not been able to for the simple reason that I have to appear in Court. I have to dissolve the problems of disposing of the property and working with the real estate agents. Also, I had to appear here for a deposition and Court last year. And now I'm here for another deposition, March 1st, 1978. And traveling all over the world, I can't be in two places at one time.
Q Then that's the only reason that you've been unemployed, these reasons that you gave?
A That's true.
Appellee has been operating the resort property by herself since the marriage was dissolved. Under her direction, the property has returned a small profit for the first time in several years. However she will have to make repairs in the neighborhood of $10,000 before the health authorities will permit continued operation. The property is valued at about $90,000, though in the course of their recent efforts to sell the property, the parties have been unable to obtain an offer approaching this figure. The marital home has a net equity value of about $22,500. Except for these two jointly owned parcels of real estate in New York, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiedman v. Wiedman
...Compare Greene v. Greene, 547 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So.2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Fried v. Fried, 375 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Bradley v. Bradley, 347 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Osman v. Osman, 280 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 289 So.2d......
-
Kelley v. Kelley, 93-2627
...Huntley v. Huntley, 578 So.2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Turner v. Turner, 529 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Fried v. Fried, 375 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (divisible divorce where court retained jurisdiction to determine property and alimony at later ...
-
Abbe v. Abbe, 82-2399
...the parties. The trial court is not authorized to make such a settlement. Hart v. Hart, 377 So.2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Fried v. Fried, 375 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); But see Maas v. Therefore, following our precedent in Hu and Power......
-
Desilets v. Desilets
...his capabilities, and on that basis enter an award of alimony as if the husband were in fact earning the income so imputed. Fried v. Fried, 375 So.2d 46 (DCA 1979); Bradley v. Bradley, 347 So.2d 789 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Mansfield v. Mansfield, 309 So.2d 629 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Foster v. Foster......