Reid v. Reid

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BERANEK; MOORE, J., and FRANZA, ARTHUR J.
• Citation: Reid v. Reid, 365 So.2d 1050 (Fla. App. 1978)
• Decision Date: 27 December 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-1698,77-1698
• Parties: William A. REID, Appellant, v. Demetria REID, Appellee.

Page 1050

365 So.2d 1050

William A. REID, Appellant, v. Demetria REID, Appellee.

No. 77-1698.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 27, 1978.

Joseph A. Rosier, Orlando, for appellant.

Kendall T. Moran, Titusville, for appellee.

BERANEK, Judge.

This is an appeal by the husband from a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The marriage lasted 26 years and at the time of the dissolution two minor children were the subject of a custody dispute. The trial court split the custody of these children with the wife receiving custody of the younger child.

The court awarded the wife child support of $25.00 per week and periodic alimony of $25.00 per week until such time as the younger child reached the age of 18. At that point the wife's alimony was to be increased $25.00 per week so that she would still receive the same total sum of $50.00 per week. The final judgment also ordered that if custody of the younger child were ever transferred to the husband, that the wife's alimony would automatically increase by $25.00 per week. The court also awarded to wife the husband's interest in the parties' jointly owned homeplace as lump sum alimony and ordered that the wife receive all furnishings in the home as lump sum alimony. We find the awards of periodic and lump sum alimony erroneous and reverse.

The award of periodic alimony was in the form of an automatic increase of $25.00 per week based on the happening of either of two events. If the child in the wife's custody were to be transferred to the husband, then the wife's alimony would be increased. Alternatively, if this child reached 18 while still in the wife's custody, alimony was to increase. Although there may be circumstances in which a predetermined automatic increase in alimony is proper, the instant facts are not such a case. Here, the husband will be paying the same amount whether the wife has custody of the minor child or not, and will be paying the same amount when child support would regularly terminate on the child's 18th birthday. The court's order merely redesignates the amount as alimony rather than child support. We find this to be error and reverse. See Richter v. Richter, 344 So.2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

The trial court also awarded the wife the husband's interest in the jointly owned homeplace as lump sum alimony. Before the wife can be awarded the husband's interest as lump sum alimony, there must be a positive showing of necessity on her part, as...