Peteler v. Peteler, 62-81

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Before PEARSON, TILLMAN; BARKDULL
• Citation: Peteler v. Peteler, 145 So.2d 291 (Fla. App. 1962)
• Decision Date: 09 October 1962
• Docket Number: No. 62-81,62-81
• Parties: George P. PETELER, Appellant. v. Catherine Deal PETELER, Appellee.

Page 291

145 So.2d 291

George P. PETELER, Appellant. v. Catherine Deal PETELER, Appellee.

No. 62-81.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 9, 1962.

Petition for Rehearing Stricken Oct. 29, 1962.

Franks & Gordon, Miami, for appellant.

Yates & Fann, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and BARKDULL, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

In this appeal, the appellant [who was the defendant in the trial court] seeks review of certain provisions of a final decree granting a divorce to his wife, the appellee, together with the custody of the minor children of the parties subject to his reasonable rights of visitation, the awarding to her of certain of the husband's properties because of a special equity found therein, alimony, support, and various other provisions which will hereinafter be more particularly discussed.

From this record, it is obvious that the chancellor was required to exercise a great deal of patience and discretion in view of the activities of the parties to this cause. He rendered a lengthy final decree, reciting his findings of fact and adjudicated not only the divorce, custody rights, support and alimony, but settled certain property rights between the parties. On this appeal, the husband has raised five points: First, as to the reasonableness of the alimony, plus the requirement of the husband to pay all medical expenses in excess of $50.00 per year for the wife. Second, the awarding of the residence of the parties [title to which was held in an estate by the entireties] to the wife upon the finding by the chancellor that the wife had special equities in certain properties and businesses owned by the husband, contending that this was nothing more than a 'lump sum' award of alimony. Third, the continuance in force of a ne exeat bond. Fourth, the award of attorneys' fees. And fifth, the awarding of a lien in favor of the wife against all business interests of the husband and enjoining him from disposing of any business interest without leave of court.

The points raised will be discussed in order. As to the first, it appears that the award of $200.00 per month to the wife as alimony and the award of $120.00 per month for each of the minor children is appropriate under the facts revealed by this case, and will enable the wife to maintain the minor children in the manner and style in which the husband maintained them during the marriage, it appearing that he has the ability to continue this mode of living. See: Knox v. Knox, 159 Fla. 128, 31 So.2d 161; Klein v. Klein, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 205; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 166; 27A C.J.S. Divorce § 236(1). The requirement that the husband be responsible for all the children's medical bills in excess of $50.00 per year is an appropriate obligation of a father. However, it is not a continuing obligation of a former husband to pay a former wife's medical expenses ad infinitum and without any attempt to determine a maximum liability on his part. Therefore, this provision of the final decree is found to be erroneous. As to the second point, the awarding to the wife the husband's interest in the residence of the parties as a special equity, the lower court made the following finding: 'That plaintiff, in accordance with the special equities therein shown by plaintiff and the financial contributions * * * be and she is hereby awarded * * * all right, title and interest...