Roberts v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 09 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. S-158,S-158 |
| Parties | Travis W. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. Nona Lee ROBERTS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Calvin W. Wilson, Pensacola, for appellant.
David H. Levin of Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellee.
Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage suit awarding his equity in the marital home to appellee, permanent alimony in the amount of $100.00 per month, and requiring him to retain her as beneficiary of his life insurance.
The facts revealed by this record show that the parties have been married since 1946. Two children are grown and gone. Appellant is a retired navy man. He acquired a small business with $1,500 borrowed by his wife from the credit union where she had worked for thirteen years earning $7,500.00 annually.
Several errors are urged as grounds for reversal. First, appellant contends it was error to award his equity in the marital home to appellee as lump sum alimony. No error is shown in that regard. The final judgment does not denominate the award of equity as lump sum alimony. Rather, the evidence in this record reveals that such award more likely amounts to a division of assets based upon equitable principles, since the equity in the home approximated the amount appellee borrowed from her credit union and furnished to appellant so that he could invest in the small business which the trial court awarded entirely to him.
The two remaining points raised by appellant have merit and require reversal in part. The first of these contends it was error to award the appellee wife $100.00 per month alimony when the record shows that appellant's ability to make such payments are no greater than appellee's ability to provide for herself. Appellant's earnings from his business and navy retirement pay combined are no greater than appellee's own earnings from her well established employment of thirteen years standing. In absence of evidence that the appellee cannot fulfill her own needs, there does not appear any basis for an award of alimony at this time under the new 'no fault-no responsibility' divorce law recently enacted by the state legislature.
The public policy under the new law which the legislature passed and which therefore we must apply seems to be that if the spouse has the capacity to make her own way through the remainder of her life unassisted by the former husband, then the courts cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casey v. Casey, 82-353-A
... ... Cann, 334 So.2d 325, 330 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976); Anderson v. Anderson, 333 So.2d 484, 487 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976); Roberts v. Roberts, 283 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1973); Ford, Rehabilitative Alimony--A Matter of Discretion or Direction?, 12 Fla.St.U.L.Rec. 285 ... ...
-
Stoler v. Stoler
... ... Roberts v. Roberts, 283 So.2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Without evidence reflecting a permanent inability on the part of the wife to become self-sustaining, ... ...
-
Sand v. Sand
... ... of her life unassisted by the former husband, then the courts cannot require him to pay alimony other than for rehabilitative purposes." (Roberts v. Roberts, Fla.App.1st 1973, 283 So.2d 396, 397); * * *.) The public policy of the State would be utterly frustrated by an award of permanent ... ...
-
Walter v. Walter
... ... Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So.2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Crees v. Crees, 342 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Roberts v. Roberts, 283 So.2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Permanent alimony should not be treated as a reward for having been a devoted and dutiful spouse ... ...