Schultz v. Schultz, 72--989

• Decision Date: 08 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 72--989,72--989
• Citation: 290 So.2d 146
• Parties: Bettie B. SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. Robert H. SCHULTZ, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 146

290 So.2d 146

Bettie B. SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. Robert H. SCHULTZ, Appellee.

No. 72--989.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 8, 1974.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 13, 1974.

Richard L. Mensh of Mensh & Mensh, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Braxton R. Ezell, Bradenton, for appellee.

GRIMES, Judge.

The court below entered an order dissolving the marriage of the parties. The wife appeals from those portions of the judgment which relate to financial matters.

The husband is a practicing attorney who is earning approximately $36,000.00 per year. The parties were married ten years. Prior to her marriage, the wife had worked as a stenographer with the County Health Department for $380.00 per month. She has not worked since shortly after her marriage. Her post high school education consists of a year and a half at business college.

There were three children born of the marriage whose ages are nine, seven and two. One of these has an undefined emotional problem. The parties' home was purchased about four years ago for $32,000.00. The testimony indicates that its value has enhanced to $40,000.00--$45,000.00. The home is encumbered by a $20,000.00 mortgage. At the time of the purchase of the home, the parties borrowed $8,000.00 from the wife's mother, of which $7,000.00 is still owing. The husband owns separate property worth at least $60,000.00, and the wife has personal assets having an approximate value of $2,000.00.

The court awarded custody of the children to the wife and ordered the husband to pay child support of $50.00 per week per child. The husband was also required to pay one-half of the major medical and dental expenses of the children. The wife was granted rehabilitative alimony of $50.00 per week for eighteen months. The home was awarded to the wife as lump sum alimony with the provision that the wife was obligated to assume the mortgage payment obligations thereon. The wife's claims of special equities in the husband's real property were denied, and the husband was ordered to pay attorney's fees of $1,000.00 to the wife's attorney.

The wife's contention that the judge erred in failing to set forth specific findings of fact in his order is without merit. The evidence supports the court's refusal to grant the wife a special equity in the husband's real property. Likewise, the claim that the court did not award the wife's attorney a sufficient fee cannot be sustained, particularly in view of the fact that the parties stipulated for the court to set a reasonable fee without the necessity of taking testimony. The remaining questions center around whether the court erred in failing to grant sufficient alimony and child support.

The law gives the trial judge broad discretion in determining the amount of alimony and support. Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 367. The burden is on the party seeking to disturb such an allowance to show that the chancellor abused...