Heller v. Heller, 2992
| Decision Date | 15 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 2992,2992 |
| Citation | 151 So.2d 35 |
| Parties | Leon S. HELLER, Appellant, v. Esther K. HELLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George L. Pink, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles H. Warwick, III, of Warwick, Paul & Warwick, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The appellant-defendant appeals from a judgment below granting a divorce to appellee and awarding her lump sum alimony.
In view of the fact that appellant's two questions on appeal have to do with the amount of the award of alimony and say nothing about the divorce decree, we will affirm the final decree insofar as the divorce itself is concerned.
On the date of the decree appellant was 70 years of age and the appellee was 57. Their married life had lasted less than 4 years, from March 30, 1956, February 18, 1960. Both had been married before and both had grown children by former spouses.
Testimony was taken before a special master, concerning which he has this to say:
'Hearings were started in this cause on March 22, 1961, and consisted of thirteen and one half days; the transcript consisted of fifteen volumes of testimony numbering 1208 pages, and forty-six exhibits were introduced and filed in said cause.
* * *
* * *
'Defendant's conduct, his desire to represent himself, and at times his hostile attitude, resulted in trying situations, required much patience, and made the proceedings more difficult than otherwise would have been.'
In his recommendations the special master recommended that, in lieu of periodic alimony, support and maintenance, a lump sum be given to the appellee, and, in his recommendations, set out various pieces of property that should be deeded to her.
The chancellor approved the special master's report, except in unimportant details, and in his decree also provided that $4,000.00 in attorney's fees be paid by the appellant, and, as lump sum alimony, provided that the appellant should deed to the appellee certain described real estate.
The appellant, in his brief, complains that the lower court awarded about 70 per cent of his life savings in lump sum alimony, which, in amount, was over $89,000.00. Also, he complains that the special master ruled that the husband could not inquire into the wife's assets at the date of the marriage, nor could he inquire into the wife's earning ability.
In 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce and Annulment, Sec. 166, it is stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 34957
...and of the several District Courts of Appeal in harmony therewith, see Griffin v. Griffin, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 236; Heller v. Heller, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 35; Beaty v. Beaty, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 54; and Whitehead v. Whitehead, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 397; and cf. Pross v. Pross, ......
-
McGarry v. McGarry, 70-259
...and earn a living as a relevant material factor in determining her need for alimony. Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 367; Heller v. Heller, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 35; Whitehead v. Whitehead, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 397; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce and Annulment, § In the case sub judice the part......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...her 'need' for alimony. Chaires v. Chaires, 1864, 10 Fla. 308, 315; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce and Annulment, Sec. 166; Heller v. Heller, supra, (Fla.App.)., 151 So.2d 35; Kahn v. Kahn, supra., (Fla.)., 78 So.2d 367. The fact that there were minor children involved in the case Sub judice (aged 15......
-
Black v. Black, 70-784
...respective financial positions of the parties, relying on the following authorities: Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 367; Heller v. Heller, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 35; Pendelton v. Pendelton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 499; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 514. And, further, that the......