Lewis v. Lewis, 57-453
| Decision Date | 30 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 57-453,57-453 |
| Citation | 104 So.2d 597 |
| Parties | D. Robert LEWIS, Appellant, v. Lois H. LEWIS, Appellee. . Third District |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hendricks & Hendricks, Miami, for appellant.
L. J. Cushman, Miami, for appellee.
This appeal is from that portion of a final decree in a divorce action awarding alimony and support for the wife and three minor children and attorney's fees for the wife's counsel.
The final decree awarded $100 per week to the wife as alimony and support for herself and three minor children, and in addition required the appellant to make mortgage payments on the marital home, as well as to pay taxes and insurance premiums. The decree further provided that in the event the marital home is sold, then the appellant would be required to pay the sum of $1,300 per year, in equal monthly installments as a rental allowance for the wife and children. The decree contained an award of $1,500 attorney's fees for the wife's counsel which was in addition to a prior temporary award of $300.
The appellant urges that the awards of alimony and support and attorney's fees are excessive and evince an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
It would belabor the point to cite the many authorities and particularly those of our Supreme Court to the effect that an award of alimony and support as well as attorney's fees is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge. Where an award of awards have been attacked as excessive or as an abuse of discretion, the burden of clearly showing such abuse of discretion is upon the one who complains.
In this instance, the appellant is a young man, 27 years of age, whose income for the six years preceding this divorce action averaged approximately $20,000. Prior to the institution of this action, the appellant had been giving his wife a $450 per month allowance, and in addition had paid other sums for clothing, mortgage payments taxes and insurance. The appellant urges that the awards should have been predicated upon his salary income for the year 1956, which was $8,600 and that this amount is a true reflection of what his prospective income will be due to disability resulting from an unfortunate injury. The trial judge, however, appears to have fully considered the prior earning capacity of the appellant, his unfortunate disability and his present earning capacity. Under these circumstances, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that a clear showing of abuse of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katz v. Katz
...the chancellor to support the award which he rendered, and same will not be destroyed in the face of such evidence. See; Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 597; Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 137. The chancellor had the power to award lump sum alimony in his discretion. ......
-
Bailey v. Bailey, 60-238
...Judge, CARROLL, CHAS., J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge, concur. 1 Astor v. Astor, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 645; Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 597.2 § 689.15 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Reid v. Reid, Fla.1954, 68 So.2d 821; Kilian v. Kilian, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 201; Latta v. Lat......
-
Deigaard v. Deigaard, s. 59-46
...and exhibits, the chancellor did not, in our opinion, abuse his discretion in making the awards which he did. See Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 597; Gilbert v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d The second contention of the appellant we think has merit. The chancellor by his decree ......
-
Sommers v. Sommers, 64-297
...for inadequacy has the burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion. See Pross v. Pross, Fla.App.,1954, 72 So.2d 671; Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.App.,App.1958, 104 So.2d 597; Bergh v. Bergh, Fla.App.,App.1964, 160 So.2d 145. We feel the appellant has met that burden by showing, among other thing......