Nicholson v. Nicholson, 78-1456
| Decision Date | 15 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1456,78-1456 |
| Citation | 372 So.2d 178 |
| Parties | Cecil E. NICHOLSON, Appellant, v. Glynn C. NICHOLSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ira M. Seidler, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Wayne O. Smith of Wallace & Smith, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
On this appeal appellant husband challenges several provisions of the final judgment of dissolution. Specifically, he asserts that the trial court erred in awarding appellee wife $100 per week rehabilitative alimony for 104 weeks, awarding child support in the amount of $50 per week, awarding as lump sum alimony a 1976 Mazda automobile and the marital residence held as tenants by the entirety, and requiring the husband to pay the marital debts including the unpaid balance on the automobile.
Upon review of the record and briefs and having considered the legal issues presented at oral argument, we find one point to have merit. The trial court erred in awarding the wife rehabilitative alimony. While we are hesitant to tread in those areas in which the trial court is accorded a wide latitude of discretion, we are compelled to do so in this case. The financial obligation of approximately $240 per week imposed upon the husband by the court is 86% Of his income as shown on his financial statement and about 96% Of his present income, which he testified had decreased since the filing of his financial statement due to increased withholding taxes. He is left with $10.50 per week to live on. The alimony award is clearly excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. DeHart v. DeHart, 360 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Santacroce v. Santacroce, 347 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Nevins v. Nevins, 305 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), Cert. denied, 327 So.2d 33 (Fla.1976). The parties have accumulated no marital assets other than the home awarded to the wife, which is worth at least $60,000 and has two outstanding mortgages in the amount of $8,500. Thus the wife has over $50,000 equity in the house. In addition she owns fifty-five acres of land in Kentucky, acquired during a prior marriage. There is no question that the wife needs financial assistance from her husband to support herself and their minor child. However, his financial resources are limited to his weekly salary. Under the factual circumstances presented, we conclude that the husband should not be required to pay the wife rehabilitative alimony.
Accordingly, the following paragraph of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blum v. Blum, s. 79-507
...7 Accordingly, each of the alimony and support provisions of the judgment must be reversed. 8 See, e. g., Nicholson v. Nicholson, 372 So.2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), and cases cited. Other aspects of the judgment likewise may not be approved. While it was appropriate, since she had been using......
-
Gentile v. Gentile, s. 89-1410
...413 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (awards of in excess of 70% of husband's take home pay an abuse of discretion); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 372 So.2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (award of 86% of current take home pay an abuse of In response, the wife points to the husband's remaining capital assets......
-
Desilets v. Desilets
...we affirm the modification order in all respects. Affirmed. BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and RYDER, J., concur. 1 Nicholson v. Nicholson, 372 So.2d 178 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); DeHart v. DeHart, 360 So.2d 1285 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Santacroce v. Santacroce, 347 So.2d 815 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).2 A CETA position i......
-
Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo
...413 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (awards in excess of 70% of husband's take home pay an abuse of discretion); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 372 So.2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (award of 86% of current take home pay an abuse of discretion). After payment of the alimony award, the former husband would......