Silvers v. Silvers

• Decision Date: 13 March 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72--736,72--736
• Citation: 274 So.2d 555
• Parties: Jerome Louis SILVERS, Appellant, v. Marilyn Natalie SILVERS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 555

274 So.2d 555

Jerome Louis SILVERS, Appellant, v. Marilyn Natalie SILVERS, Appellee.

No. 72--736.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1973.

Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Hansford D. Tyler, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Reiseman & Buchbinder, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant husband was defendant in a divorce action wherein the wife was granted a divorce, custody of their two minor children, the marital home as partial lump sum alimony, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars per month as alimony and the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars per month as child support for each of their two children.

The issue presented on appeal by the defendant is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding alimony and child support in the total sum of One Thousand Dollars. Appellant contends that there was not sufficient competent evidence adduced to support an award in such an amount.

In the court's findings of fact and conclusions it stated:

'The Court finds that the integrity of the Defendant, JEROME LOUIS SILVERS, has been impeached. It is difficult to believe that the Defendant, a college graduate who has owned a home in Florida for a number of years, did not understand what he was signing when he signed an application for homestead exemption for the year 1970, and several months thereafter a sworn Complaint in the Tennessee divorce action stating that he was a resident of the State of Tennessee since 1967. The Court finds that the Tennessee decree is not entitled to full faith and credit, since the Tennessee Court was without jurisdiction of the parties or the subject matter.

'The Court does, however, find the marriage is irretrievably broken and that there is no chance of reconciliation.

'The Court further finds that all of the earnings that have established the standard of living in the parties during their marriage have been derived from family corporations owned by the Defendant's family. The Defendant's salaries are dictated through the family to benefit the particular time and situation. The Court does not think the funds in particular belong to Defendant, but his salary is higher when the necessity is there and if the salary is lower, gifts are given to the Defendant in lieu of his salary.

'The Court finds it difficult to believe that a graduate engineer is flying down to Belietz, British Honduras to establish a new business on behalf of a corporation that his family is involved in to work for $650.00 per month.

'The Court finds that the Defendant abandoned his family when he went to Tennessee and sent them only $200.00 a month, knowing the mortgage payments on the home exceeded this sum. Since the Defendant, through his attorney, offered...