Sokol v. Sokol
| Decision Date | 26 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | 83-197,Nos. 82-2819,s. 82-2819 |
| Citation | 441 So.2d 682 |
| Parties | David F. SOKOL, Appellant, v. Susan G. SOKOL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John T. Blakely of Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor & Ruppel, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.
Joseph R. Miele, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
In these consolidated appeals, David Sokol challenges those provisions of a final judgment of dissolution granting his wife rehabilitative alimony and child support and awarding her his interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony. He further contends the court erred in finding him in contempt for failing to comply with the alimony and support requirements of the final judgment.
The Sokols married in 1968. They have two sons, ages seven and twelve. Shortly after the marriage the husband returned to college to obtain his master's degree. He later began a career with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), his last position being as a program manager with a gross annual income of $27,137. Additionally, he earned about $1,500 per year as an adjunct instructor at a junior college. In 1980 the parties agreed that the husband would attend classes on a part-time basis to work toward a doctoral degree to enhance his career prospects. In late 1981 the parties separated, and the husband decided to attend college on a full-time basis, planning to support the family from a $5,000 annual stipend, augmented by about $500 per month which the wife was receiving as a preschool teacher. After the separation the husband began sending $500 per month to his wife for support of the family.
In January 1982 the wife petitioned to dissolve the marriage. The husband continued to send her monthly support payments until the final hearing, although he did not receive the full amount of his educational stipend. At the hearing he testified he was unemployed and had no regular income. Neither the husband nor the wife had any significant assets other than their interests in the jointly-owned marital home. Although the wife was still employed as a preschool teacher, she aspired to retrain as a dental technician. The wife valued their home at $70,000; the husband at $90,000. The home was subject to a mortgage of approximately $36,000.
In the final judgment the court awarded the wife custody of the children and ordered the husband to pay $350 per month per child as support and to make monthly payments of $147 to repay a second mortgage loan obtained by the husband to consolidate some of his debts. The court also ordered the husband to pay $75 per week for three years for rehabilitative alimony and awarded the wife the husband's interest in the marital home and furnishings as lump sum alimony. Thus, the husband's monthly financial obligations amounted to $1,172. The court reserved jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs.
When the husband failed to meet his first month's obligations, the wife moved to hold him in contempt. The trial judge found him in contempt but made no finding that the husband had the ability to meet his obligations, or that he had voluntarily divested himself of the ability to comply with the requirements of the final judgment.
The principles of law relating to the husband's points on appeal are well settled. First, in determining the proper amount of child support and alimony, the trial court must consider the parent/husband's ability to pay, the needs of the children and wife, and the standards they shared during the marriage. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 363 So.2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 472 (Fla.1979); Davis v. Davis, 371 So.2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Second, the trial court has broad discretion in fashioning awards necessary to achieve an equitable distribution of marital assets. This includes awarding lump sum alimony in appropriate circumstances. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Third, while appellate courts are reluctant to disturb the judgment of a trial court in respect to financial awards in marital cases, Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1976), it nevertheless becomes our duty to do so when an award is not supported by substantial, competent evidence. DeHart v. DeHart, 360 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Finally, a contempt order in a domestic relations case must include a finding of the obligated party's ability to pay the amount due or show that the court found that the party had voluntarily divested such ability. Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So.2d 650 (Fla.1976); Smith v. Smith, 430 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Deutsch v. Deutsch, 349 So.2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
The evidence at the hearing reveals that the husband did not have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haas v. Haas
...efforts rather than upon the best efforts which reasonably should be expected over an extended time period. See Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So.2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Wolfman v. Wolfman, 344 So.2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977.) It is also possible that the trial court awarded child support based upon ......
-
Archer v. Archer
...The trial court should consider the childrens' needs, and the parents' ability to pay and prior standard of living. Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So.2d 682 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983). A trial court may properly require the children to be maintained in the same style as before the parents' divorce to the ......
-
Gentile v. Gentile, s. 89-1410
...properties. Appellate courts have not hesitated to find an abuse of discretion in similar awards. Blum v. Blum; Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So.2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (awards totalling 71% of husband's take home pay an abuse of discretion); Kaylor v. Kaylor, 413 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (awar......
-
Safferstone v. Safferstone, 86-854
...and that Mr. Safferstone's level of education would enable him to achieve a much higher level of income. See Canakaris; Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So.2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); see also Stelk v. Stelk, 442 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment under review in all ......