Pendleton v. Pendleton
| Decision Date | 30 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 267,267 |
| Citation | 189 So.2d 499 |
| Parties | Maxine K. PENDLETON, Appellant, v. Herbert M. PENDLETON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald H. Norman, of Ross, Norman & Cory, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Warren O. Windle, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final decree in divorce. The appellant, plaintiff below, was awarded a final decree of divorce but the chancellor ruled against appellant's contention that she was due a special equity in the residence which had been purchased with the appellee during coverture as an estate by the entirety. The chancellor further ruled against the appellant's contention that he should retain jurisdiction for the purpose of determining alimony in the future. These are the two points brought on for review by this court.
The appellant filed her complaint alleging that the parties were wed in New York state in 1948, that there were no children born of this marriage, that the defendant possessed a violent and ungovernable temper and that he was guilty of extreme cruelty toward her. The appellant further alleged that she was and had been since coming to Florida a teacher in the public schools of Broward County and that, although the appellee was employed and earned a good wage, he had failed to pay his share of their household expenses.
The appellee's answer acknowledged the residence, marriage, lack of children and that he and his wife owned as an estate by the entirety their residence in Fort Lauderdale but denied all allegations of misconduct on his part.
There was testimony that there was considerable unpleasantness within the home as a result of the appellant's visits with her family in the north and appellee's alleged use of intoxicating beverages. The appellant, a school teacher, had earned in excess of $6,000.00 a year for a number of years while the appellee, as a cabinet maker, had earned approximately $4,000.00 a year. In 1953 they had purchased their home for $17,500.00. At present there is an outstanding mortgage balance of $2,826.40. The appellant was the family bookkeeper depositing her checks in a joint bank account from which mortgage payments and various other bills were paid. The appellee cashed his paycheck and deposited the proceeds in a bowl in the china closet from which groceries, utility bills and other family obligations were met. The wife had a teacher's credit union account into which she also made deposits.
The chancellor after hearing all of the testimony determined that the appellant had sustained the burden of proof as to a divorce upon the grounds of extreme cruelty but denied her alimony with no reservation of jurisdiction to award alimony in the future. The chancellor further ruled that each party had contributed to the marriage and to the purchase of the residence. The appellant's contention as to a special equity in the residence was denied and the parties were declared to own the residence as tenants in common. The chancellor ruled that they should share equally the estate that had been accumulated during coverture.
On appeal the appellant contends that it was error for the chancellor not to reserve jurisdiction for the purpose of awarding alimony because without such reservation the decree precludes the wife from ever obtaining alimony in the event of a change in circumstances.
The question of whether alimony shall be awarded the wife is within the sound...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krieger v. Krieger, CC--64
...depended upon a showing of her need and the husband's ability to pay, Jacobs v. Jacobs, Fla.1951, 50 So.2d 169; Pendleton v. Pendleton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 499; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 166, so now the husband's entitlement to alimony depends upon a showing of his need and the wife's abi......
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 34957
...189 So.2d 397; and cf. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671; Schiff v. Schiff, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 295; and Pendleton v. Pendleton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 499. These decisions all stand for the proposition that the marriage status, once achieved by the wife, does not carry with it th......
-
Poe v. Poe
...244 So.2d 449; Melton v. Melton, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 705; Greene v. Greene, Fla.App.1972, 256 So.2d 258; but see: Pendleton v. Pendleton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 499; Steinhau v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 825. It is noted that these cases turn on a question of discretion exerc......
-
Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 70-574
...sound judicial discretion of the chancellor as determined from all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Pendleton v. Pendleton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 499. See also Munger v. Munger, Fla., Fourth District Court of Appeal opinion filed April 30, 1971, 249 So.2d 772. We cannot......