Primato v. Primato, 72--795
| Decision Date | 13 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--795,72--795 |
| Citation | 274 So.2d 568 |
| Parties | Arlene R. PRIMATO, Appellant, v. Robert J. PRIMATO, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Coker & Carlon, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.
Simon, Hays & Grundwerg, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ., and CREWS, JOHN J., Jr., Associate Judge.
The appellant Arlene R. Primato was the defendant in an action in which a judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered on May 23, 1972. Therein the custody of a child of the parties, a daughter then aged ten months, was awarded to the wife, with visitation rights granted to the husband, who was ordered to pay the wife $25 per week for child support and to pay rehabilitative alimony for a period of one year in the amount of $15 per week.
The parties were declared to be tenants in common of the residence which they owned and had occupied. The wife's mother Amelia Herth was found to have an equitable lien on the property for $1,500 which she had advanced, which the husband was ordered to repay to her in monthly installments without interest. Designated personal property belonging to the wife was required to be delivered to her, and the husband was ordered to reimburse her for certain expenses of travel to Miami incident to the suit, and also to pay the wife's attorney fees and expenses.
The main thrust of the appeal filed by the wife is her contention of inadequacy of the allowances for child support and alimony. We find no reason shown to disturb the allowance of child support, but find merit in the appellant's contention of inadequacy of the alimony award.
Allowance of alimony and determination of the amount thereof is a matter which rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, upon consideration of the needs of the wife and the financial ability of the husband. A decision thereon is not to be disturbed by an appellate court unless it is shown to represent an abuse of discretion. In the present case we are impelled to conclude that the allowance of alimony in the amount of $15 per week for one year was an abuse of discretion and that in the circumstances disclosed the alimony award was inadequate.
When the parties were married the wife was 19 years of age and the husband was 21. The marriage lasted three years. At the time of the suit for dissolution of marriage the husband was an air conditioning mechanic earning between $11,000 and $12,000 per year. The wife had done factory work...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herzog v. Herzog, 75--13
...by an appellate court unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Christianson v. Christianson, Fla.App.1973, 274 So.2d 562; Primato v. Primato, Fla.App.1973, 274 So.2d 568; Sapp v. Sapp, Fla.App.1973, 275 So.2d 43. No abuse of discretion having been made to appear on the record presented in th......
-
Brown v. Brown
...recipient until he or she is, in the exercise of reasonable efforts and endeavors, in a position of self-support. (See Primato v. Primato, Fla.App.3d 1973, 274 So.2d 568) In Lefler v. Lefler, Fla.App.4th 1972, 264 So.2d 112, our sister court of the Fourth District '* * * We have the view, h......
-
Sisson v. Sisson, U--199
...personal property valued at $218,700, and can well afford to give financial assistance to appellee. 1 F.S. 61.08.2 See Primato v. Primato, Fla.App.3rd 1973, 274 So.2d 568 and dissenting opinion in Brown v. Brown, Fla.App.1st 1974, 300 So.2d 719.3 See Special Concurring opinion in Brown v. B......