Orr v. Orr, 84-407
| Decision Date | 24 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-407,84-407 |
| Citation | 458 So.2d 362 |
| Parties | Carolyn Brimberry ORR, Appellant, v. George Eadie ORR, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Lane, Jr., Coral Gables, for appellant.
Frederick E. Graves of Frederick E. Graves, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
The wife appeals from a final judgment dissolving a 36-year marriage. When the parties married in 1947, neither party had any assets. The wife had a B.S. degree in history and the husband had just terminated his army service. The wife worked full time as a secretary during the first four years of the marriage while the husband went to law school. The couple then settled into the roles expected of them in a marriage of the 1940's and 1950's. The husband was the breadwinner as a lawyer, state's attorney, and then a judge. The wife was the housewife, homemaker, and mother to their four children. The parties over the years accumulated assets, abilities, and liabilities.
After 36 years the marriage has been dissolved and the parties exit the partnership in a most disparate fashion. The division of personal and real property gives the appearance of fairness and evenhandedness. The parties equally divided their personal property. The trial court ordered the marital home sold in October, 1984, when the remaining minor child reaches majority, and ordered the proceeds of the sale also divided equally. Thereafter, as both parties reach their 60's (the husband is 59; the wife is 58), any semblance of parity ends.
The husband on one hand faces life financially and socially secure. He is assured of a substantial income with substantial fringe benefits, and when he so chooses, a substantial retirement. He was a lawyer with a prestigious Miami law firm, a member of the state's attorney's office, and since 1974, a circuit court judge. He earns approximately $60,000 per year, along with the medical, educational, and social benefits of that prestigious office. When he chooses to retire he will benefit from two annuities purchased during his years in private practice, a private deferred compensation retirement fund, and the retirement benefits provided from his service in the army, as a state's attorney, and as a judge. Additionally, he will be free to practice law to whatever extent he chooses.
The wife on the other hand faces a future of insecurity. When the husband left the marital home in 1982, the wife, at age 58, sought her first full-time job in 32 years. She has no profession and is unskilled. Her degree in history is useless at her age in terms of earning ability. As the trial court acknowledges, "I can't imagine what I'd do with a history degree." She obtained a job with the bookkeeping department of a small neighborhood newspaper. She is paid on the basis of $5.15 per hour for the hours that she works (32 to 38 hours a week). She has no job security, no seniority, no assurances of substantial future increases in pay, and must compete in the marketplace with much younger and more energetic job seekers. She has no retirement benefits whatsoever nor the time to accumulate any.
The trial judge awarded her permanent alimony (which is tax deductible to the husband and taxable to the wife) in the amount of $800 per month, and ordered the husband to make the wife's monthly car payment. The judgment also makes her the beneficiary of the husband's life insurance policies. However, since they are encumbered by loans which the husband was not ordered to repay and the wife cannot afford to do so, they are virtually useless to her.
The husband, after the minor adjustment to his income required by the final judgment, can still maintain the life style he has enjoyed for 36 years. The wife cannot. As our supreme court said in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980):
[A] dissolution award should be sufficient to compensate the wife for her contribution to the marriage.
We recognize that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lanzetta v. Lanzetta, 89-2064
...the marriage. Pirino v. Pirino, 525 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Carr v. Carr, 522 So.2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Orr v. Orr, 458 So.2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review dismissed, 464 So.2d 555 (Fla.1985). The inadequate award of permanent alimony, coupled with the disproportionate divisi......
-
Barry v. Barry
...399 So.2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA), appeal dismissed, 407 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1981). The present case is markedly similar to Orr v. Orr, 458 So.2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. dismissed, 464 So.2d 555 (Fla.1985). The Orr case also involved a long-term marriage, where the husband, an attorney and late......
-
Heim v. Heim
...marital partners that is brought about largely by the "paltry" amount of alimony awarded to her by the trial court. See Orr v. Orr, 458 So.2d 362 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984). It is quite obvious that Dr. Heim leaves the divorce with almost everything and Mrs. Heim with almost nothing. By "everyt......
-
Poe v. Poe
...while the former husband has an active and prosperous law practice. This case has many of the same circumstances found in Orr v. Orr, 458 So.2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) except that here, unlike Orr, the marital assets were not equally divided. While we agree that equitable distribution does ......