Hirsch v. Hirsch
Decision Date | 03 April 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 78-25,78-25 |
Citation | 369 So.2d 407 |
Parties | Moe HIRSCH, Appellant, v. Fay HIRSCH, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Paul J. Levine, Miami, for appellant.
Abbott & Frumkes and Melvyn B. Frumkes, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr., (Ret.), Associate Judges.
Moe Hirsch appeals from a final judgment which increased, from $110 to $270 a week, the support provisions of a separation agreement with his now ex-wife, the present appellee, Fay Hirsch; which granted her additional lump sum payments for the purchase of a new car and for the repayment of medical expenses; and which awarded her $15,000 in attorney's fees. We reverse the judgment below.
In a prior appearance of this case, Hirsch v. Hirsch, 309 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), we specifically held that New York law is applicable to the present controversy, stating at 309 So.2d 49-50:
As all parties agree, the showing necessitated by the law of New York to justify the modification of a separation agreement such as the one before us differs very markedly from the Florida standard, which requires only a significant "change of circumstances." Section 61.14(1) Florida Statutes (1975). In contrast, New York, as its law was expressed in the leading case of McMains v. McMains, 15 N.Y.2d 283, 258 N.Y.S.2d 93, 206 N.E.2d 185 (1965), requires an ex-wife seeking to increase alimony provisions of such an agreement to meet extremely stringent conditions. She may succeed in that demand only
". . . when it appears not merely that the former wife wants or by some standards should have more money But that she is actually unable to support herself on the amount heretofore allowed and is in actual danger of becoming a public charge . . ." (e.s.)
15 N.Y.2d at 283, 258 N.Y.S.2d at 95, 206 N.E.2d at 186. The later New York cases have stressed the very restrictive nature of the law on this issue and have repeatedly emphasized the requirement that the ex-wife demonstrate a "real, dire need" for an increase which would obviate an actual danger of her becoming a "public charge." Apkarian v. Apkarian, 39 A.D.2d 609, 331 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1972); Kreuger v. Kreuger, 86 Misc.2d 857, 383 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1003 (Sup.Ct.1976), and cases cited.
Our review of the extensive record below convinces us that Mrs. Hirsch fell far short of satisfying these requirements of the New York law. Apart from the $110.00 weekly support provided by the agreement, Mrs. Hirsch has over $5,000 in the bank and no outstanding debts or obligations. While she is surely not a person of wealth, she is just as surely not a candidate for the welfare rolls. 1 Thus, although the modification of the alimony provisions may well have been proper under the Florida law, it was clearly not justified under the applicable law of New York. Gardner v. Gardner, 40 A.D.2d 153, 338 N.Y.S.2d 639 (1972), affd., 33 N.Y.2d 899, 352 N.Y.S.2d 626, 307 N.E.2d 823 (1973) ( ); Apkarian v. Apkarian, supra ( ); Freidberg v. Freidberg, 79 Misc.2d 361, 360 N.Y.S.2d 527 (Family Ct. 1974) (denying increase in absence of "plain showing of . . . need to indemnify the public purse" although ex-wife's subjective needs were in excess of her income).
A fortiori, it was error for the trial court to make lump sum awards of $5,000 for Mrs. Hirsch to purchase a new car and $2,500 for reimbursement of past medical expenses. Those awards cannot stand not only because, as we have held, Mrs. Hirsch did not satisfy the McMains criteria; but also because they represent an attempt to modify or "reform" the lump sum provisions of the parties' settlement agreement 2 which is impermissible, no matter what the showing, under the law of New York. Trazzi v. Trazzi, 49 A.D.2d 954, 374 N.Y.S.2d 341 (1975); Kaye v. Kaye, 38 A.D.2d 753, 329 N.Y.S.2d 648 (1972); see Silver v. Silver, 36 N.Y.2d 324, 367 N.Y.S.2d 777, 327 N.E.2d 816 (1975). 3
Our reversal of the provisions of the final judgment favorable to Mrs. Hirsch requires that the attorney's fee award be remanded for reconsideration. Although, within the discretion of the chancellor, attorney's fees may be granted to an ex-wife under the New York law even...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McMahan v. Toto
...Appeal held that whether attorney's fees were allowed should also be decided under Maine law. Id. at 483. Finally, in Hirsch v. Hirsch, 369 So.2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), Florida's Third District Court of Appeal had previously determined in a related proceeding involving the same parties tha......
-
Rosen v. Rosen, 79-2321
...those benefits, it is therefore required that upon remand, the pre-final judgment fees be reduced commensurately. E.g., Hirsch v. Hirsch, 369 So.2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and cases cited; cf. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 251 So.2d 902 (Fla.1st DCA The wife has filed a motion for an award of attorney......
-
Baker v. Baker, 92-2563
...policy of the forum state. See Punzi v. Shaker Advertising Agency, Inc., 601 So.2d 599, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Hirsch v. Hirsch, 369 So.2d 407, 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In the instant case, Ted and Alyce expressly chose Pennsylvania law to govern their rights under the agreement. Although t......
-
Muss v. Muss
...No such claim has been raised in the present case.For a recent application of the McMains doctrine by this court, see Hirsch v. Hirsch, 369 So.2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). ...