Schultz v. Schultz
| Decision Date | 04 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 66--495,66--495 |
| Citation | 197 So.2d 310 |
| Parties | Godesa SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. Herbert D. SCHULTZ, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Armando Maraio, Miami, for appellant.
Hughlan Long, So. Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C.J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant wife seeks review of a final decree granting her a divorce and ordering the appellee husband to pay as alimony the sum of $650.00 per month for a period of twenty-four months. The chancellor also ordered the sale of a jointly owned house and furnishings therein, the funds to be divided equally between the parties.
The parties were married on December 21, 1962, and on August 30, 1965, the wife removed herself from the marital home. Both parties were previously married and had children by their former marriages. No children were born of this union. The wife was gainfully employed prior to this marriage.
The wife contends that the award of alimony was insufficient.
A full discussion of the propriety of awarding alimony in gross may be found in Yandell v. Yandell, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 554. It is there stated that ordinarily the better practice is to direct periodic payments of permanent alimony. There are situations, however, which justify or possibly require a lump sum award. A lump sum award is justified where, as here, the marriage was of relatively short duration and there were no children born of the union. In addition, both parties were previously married and the wife was gainfully employed prior to this marriage.
The amount of the award is within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor. The wife has failed to carry the burden of showing an abuse of that discretion. We conclude that there is substantial and competent evidence in the record to support the amount of the award and the mode of payment. 1 However, in light of our holding below the chancellor may wish to review the amount awarded. therefore, upon remand the chancellor may, in his discretion, reconsider the award of alimony.
The wife next contends that the chancellor erred in ordering the sale of property owned by the entireties.
In her complaint the wife did not pray for the partition or sale of the jointly owned home, nor did the answer of the husband seek such relief. At trial, the wife, who had removed herself from the marital home, requested that she be allowed to live in the home so that she would be relieved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baggett v. Baggett
.... . The wife's need and the husband's ability are still the correct equation to follow. See 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 161; Schultz v. Schultz, Fla.App. 1967, 197 So.2d 310, and Arrington v. Arrington, Fla.App. 1963, 150 So.2d 473." 256 So.2d at When we compare the respective positions of the ......
-
Wolper v. Wolper, 68--991
...guide the chancellor in selecting the amount of alimony to be awarded. See Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 367; Schultz v. Schultz, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 310; Whitehead v. Whitehead, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 397. After a close examination of the record, we are convinced that the chancello......
-
Calligarich v. Calligarich, 71--412
...The wife's need and the husband's ability are still the correct equation to follow. See 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 161; Schultz v. Schultz, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 310, and Arrington v. Arrington, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 473. We therefore conclude that plaintiff's alimony should be made perman......
-
Paras v. Paras, 71--867
...and 197. The mere fact that the $12,000 could be paid in monthly installments did not destroy its 'lump sum' character. Schultz v. Schultz, 197 So.2d 310 (Fla.App.1967). It is my opinion that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify this agreement and that neither the husband nor the w......