McRee v. McRee, 71--781
| Decision Date | 03 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--781,71--781 |
| Citation | 267 So.2d 21 |
| Parties | Peggy Yvonne McREE, Appellant, v. Robert Wade McREE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David U. Strawn, of Strawn, Saxon & Richardson, Melbourne, for appellant.
G. W. Hedman, of Hedman & Lawrence, Melbourne, for appellee.
The issue on appeal is the propriety of an award of alimony in a final judgment of divorce rendered by the Circuit Court of Brevard County, Florida, on 9 August 1971. The final judgment awarded the plaintiff lump sum alimony in the amount of $1,200.00 payable at the rate of $100.00 per month and $600.00 per month for child support. It required the defendant to pay all major medical expenses for the children and gave plaintiff a $2,000.00 special equity in the defendant's share of the proceeds from the sale of a jointly held residence.
The plaintiff, appellant here, is a thirty-four-year-old mother of two children who were ages five and seven years at the time of the final hearing in August of 1971. Her former husband, the defendant below, is a dentist. He testified to a gross income of about $22,800.00 for the year preceding the final hearing. In addition, his earnings generated contributions of about $4,100.00 to a pension and profit sharing plan administered by his professional association. The plaintiff testified that she needed $1,100.00 per month to support herself and the two children, but admitted that she had been living on approximately $600.00 per month during the year of separation that preceded the final hearing. Her standard of living during this time was diminished from that enjoyed by the family before the separation. The plaintiff is a high school graduate with one year of college training in commercial courses. She worked approximately six years subsequent to her 1958 marriage to the defendant, but has not worked on a regular basis since June of 1964.
The criteria for alimony are the need of the wife and the husband's ability to pay. Calligarich v. Calligarich, Fla.App.1971, 256 So.2d 60. Obviously this formula does not necessarily compel and award which maintains the pre-divorce standard of living for the wife. The wife's age and potential for employment are relevant factors which may be considered in assessing her need for alimony. McGarry v. McGarry, Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 13. Lump sum alimony may be awarded to the wife instead of permanent periodic alimony where a lump sum award is justified for rehabilitative purposes. Caligarich v. Calligarich, supra. A lump sum award may be used, in other words,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walton v. Walton, 73--651
...Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 739; Black v. Black, Fla.App.1971, 247 8so.2d Black v. Black, Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 256 So.2d 60; McRee v. McRee, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 21; Belcher v. Belcher, Fla.1972, 271 So.2d 7. Undoubtedly, these authorities stand for the principle advanced by the appellant......
-
Frye v. Frye
...had the authority to award lump sum rehabilitative alimony. See: Kennedy v. Kennedy, Fla.1974, 303 So.2d 629 (1974); McRee v. McRee, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 21. He had jurisdiction to entertain the motion to modify per the authorities in the majority opinion; this he declined to do, holding......
-
Krieger v. Krieger, CC--64
...claims on the husband for sustenance or education.' See Gordon v. Gordon, 192 So.2d 514 (Fla.App.1st 1966). See also McRee v. McRee, 267 So.2d 21 (Fla.App.4th 1972).' When we consider the above factors as applied to facts before us, we find that the wife was 51 years of age at the time of t......
-
Patterson v. Patterson, 73--1416
...alimony calls for a relative assessment of the wife's needs and the husband's ability to pay.' Id. at 408--409; McRee v. McRee, 267 So.2d 21 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1972); Sharpe v. Sharpe, 267 So.2d 665 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972); and Toth v. Toth, 228 So.2d 295 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1969). With respect to the aw......