Maroun v. Maroun, 72--1054

• Decision Date: 08 May 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72--1054,72--1054
• Citation: Maroun v. Maroun, 277 So.2d 572 (Fla. App. 1973)
• Parties: Joseph Abdo MAROUN, Appellant, v. Ing-Marie MAROUN, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 572

277 So.2d 572

Joseph Abdo MAROUN, Appellant, v.Ing-Marie MAROUN, Appellee.

No. 72--1054.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 8, 1973.

Edward C. Vining, Jr., and R. M. MacArthur, Miami, for appellant.

Carr & Warren, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, respondent below, seeks review of a final judgment awarding the appellee, petitioner below, alimony, child support, and equity in the marital residence.

On July 27, 1972petitioner-wife was granted a dissolution of marriage.The court awarded her the following: (1) custody of the six year old child, (2) $100 per week alimony and child support to November 1, 1972, (3) $75 per week thereafter, (4) the interest of respondent-husband in their marital residence as lump sum alimony, and (5) attorney's fees plus costs.Petitioner was ordered to convey to appellant-husband, her interest in the improved parcel of Lake Placid real estate which was held as an estate by the entireties.

Appellant-husband contends that the lump sum alimony and periodic alimony and child support are excessive in amount in view of the needs and ability to pay and, therefore, are error and abuse of discretion.We hold to the contrary.

First, there is ample authority that a court granting a dissolution of marriage can award the husband's interest in property, which the husband and wife owned as tenants by the entireties, to the wife as lump sum alimony.F.S. § 61.08 F.S.A.;Kilian v. Kilian, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 201;Bildner v. Bildner, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 749.

Second, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the amount awarded for alimony and child support based upon the testimony elicited at the hearing.Appellant, a mechanical engineer, is drawing $200 to $300 per week out of a business of which he is a 50% Owner.He presently owns a 1972 Cadillac automobile and recently sold a 1970 Lincoln automobile.He owns on Lake Placid a parcel of improved property which is held with his wife as an estate by the entireties.He also owns another lake lot which is vacant.Further, petitioner wife has no income and no assets other than an interest in the two parcels of real property held with her husband as an estate by the entireties.

It is well established that in order to obtain a reversal of any portion of a final dissolution of a marriage judgment dealing with alimony, the appellant must carry the burden of showing an abuse of discretion.SeeMilander v. Milander, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 876 and cases cited therein.We find that appellant-husband has failed to carry his burden.Accordingly, that part of the judgment awarding lump sum alimony and periodic alimony and child support is affirmed.

On cross-appeal petitioner-wife contends it was error to...