Schwartz v. Schwartz, s. 74--192
| Decision Date | 18 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 74--192,74--204,s. 74--192 |
| Parties | Arlene SCHWARTZ, Appellant, v. Melvin R. SCHWARTZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and GOBBIE, EVELYN, Associate Judge.
From a judgment in an action for dissolution of marriage Arlene Schwartz the plaintiff below, filed an appeal (No. 74--192) and an interlocutory appeal (No. 74--204), challenging the correctness of certain provisions of the judgment.
The appellant contends the allowances for alimony and child support were inadequate; that the court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony rather than permanent alimony; and by denying her request that the husband's interest in the jointly owned residence property be awarded her as lump sum alimony. Appellant further contends the court erred in limiting her right to live in the family residence with the children to June 15, 1974; and that the court erred in failing to award her a special equity in the stock owned by her husband in a business corporation.
Refusal of the court to grant to the wife as lump sum alimony the husband's interest in the jointly owned residence was not error, that being a matter within the discretion of the court. No reason in law has been shown to disturb the court's ruling adverse to the wife's claim of special equity in the husband's interest in the business corporation referred to below.
We find merit in the contentions of the appellant-wife as to the inadequacy of alimony and child support, in certain respects as discussed below, and as to her contention that the court erred in directing that the wife should not occupy the residence premises beyond June 15, 1974.
By the judgment the wife was awarded custody of the three children of the parties, boys whose ages ranged from 12 to 16 years. Child support of $300 per month was awarded, representing $100 per month for each child, and the husband was ordered to pay 'reasonable and necessary medical and dental bills of the children.'
The husband was directed to pay the wife 'rehabilitative alimony for a period of five years' in the amount of $450 per month 'until the term of rehabilitative alimony is completed.'
With regard to the residence premises which had been owned by the parties as tenants by the entireties for eight years, the judge made provision for division of the furniture between the parties, as they should need for establishing separate residences thereafter. The court directed that the residence property should not be sold prior to June 15, 1974, and made provision for the wife to have possession thereof until that date, with a provision that until June 15, 1974, the mortgage payments on the residence premises should be paid by the husband. In the judgment the court retained 'jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties.'
The appellant contends the alimony and child support awarded is inadequate in that $750 per month is insufficient to enable her and the children to be maintained in the manner established by their mode and expense of living in the years prior to the dissolution of marriage action. She presented evidence that the amount supplied by the husband for maintenance of the family prior to the action was in excess of $2,200 per month. The husband's evidence placed that figure at $1,700 per month. During the extended pendency of the action (which commenced on November 18, 1971, and terminated by judgment entered January 30, 1974) the wife received $1,200 per month under an order for temporary alimony and child support. She testified that during such period, in addition to the temporary allowance, she was required to borrow money from her mother, in the aggregate amount of $8,000.
As to the husband's ability to pay, there was the evidence of the amount previously supplied by him in maintaining the family. See Klein v. Klein, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 205. The husband was shown to be the owner of 50% Of the stock of a corporation engaged in the business of operating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith, 79-546
...alimony. Of the numerous cases of this and other courts which mandate this conclusion, we quote from only two. In Schwartz v. Schwartz, 297 So. 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), the facts as to the length of the marriage, and the age and employment experience of the wife and the number of children we......
-
Leone v. Leone
...1970). The party challenging the child support award has the burden of showing it represents an abuse of discretion. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 297 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So.2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Bordman, 231 So.2d at 543. In the instant case, the wife has not......
-
Adams v. Adams
...and therefore an award of rehabilitative alimony would be inappropriate. Lash v. Lash, 307 So.2d at 243; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 297 So.2d 117, 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Reback v. Reback, 296 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So.2d 737 (Fla.1975). In the present case, even if the ......
-
Goldstein v. Goldstein, 74--674
...trial court because they were decided after the date of the judgment: Reback v. Reback, Fla.App.1974, 296 So.2d 541; Schwartz v. Schwartz, Fla.App.1974, 297 So.2d 117; Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, Fla.App.1974, 299 So.2d In Reback v. Reback, supra, speaking through Judge Pearson this court said: 'Th......