Stanley v. Stanley

• Decision Date: 10 January 1947
• Citation: 28 So.2d 694,158 Fla. 402
• Parties: STANLEY v. STANLEY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

28 So.2d 694

158 Fla. 402

STANLEY v. STANLEY.

Florida Supreme Court

January 10, 1947

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; George E. Holt judge.

James C Knight, of Miami, for appellant.

McCune Hiaasen, Fleming & Kelley, of Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

HARRISON, Associate Justice.

This controversy brings for review an order bearing date of June 7, 1946 requiring appellant to pay doctor bills in amount of $75 incurred in behalf of one of his minor sons, and increasing from $100 to $150 per month the support money to be by him paid for each of his two sons, such increase to begin on the 10th day of November 1945.

The contending parties were divorced by decree of the Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida, on July 31, 1942. The decree expressly adopted an agreement between the parties relating to settlement of property rights, alimony, custody of the two minor sons, and required payment on the 10th day of each month the sum of $100 for the support and care of each son during minority. There was also provision for a $5,000 educational policy for each child, and insurance on the life of appellant for $25,000, in favor of the appellee, and his two sons.

The ninth paragraph of the said agreement reads as follows: '9. That the provision above in which the husband agrees to pay to the wife One Hundred Dollars each month for the support and care of Trowbridge Hull Stanley, Jr., and One Hundred Dollars each month for the support and care of Nicholas Bennet Stanley is made with the expectation that such sums will adequately provide for the usual and ordinary expenses necessary to the proper care and support of said children, but the husband also agrees that in addition to paying said monthly payments and in addition to keeping the educational policies above mentioned in force and effect that he will assist said children to the best of his financial ability with respect to any unusual and extraordinary medical, dental and hospital expenses which may be incurred by them'

Appellee was awarded custody of her sons with provision that she should determine where and in what manner they should live. The father was given the right to have possession and custody of said children fifty per cent of their vacation each year.

Shortly after the entry of the final decree the appellee by virtue of illness entered a Sanitarium in Towson, Md., and there remained according to appellant until approximately June 1, 1944. Because of their mother's illness the two sons joined their father, in Chicago on September 20, 1942, and he placed them at his expense in Howe (Indiana) Military Academy early in October 1942; they remained until the close of the June term in 1944. Appellant has shown by his testimony that the expense incurred in maintaining his sons in Howe Academy exceeded $200 per month. He also testified that they joined their mother in Florida at the close of the term, on June 10, 1944.

Petition was filed by appellee on October 30, 1945, and in addition to other relief, sought an increase in the monthly allowance for the support of the two sons, aged 14 and 16 years respectively, and sought an order requiring appellant to pay doctor bills in the amount of $75 incurred in the treatment of one of the sons for systemic disorder and boils.

On November 5, 1945 an order was entered requiring appellant to show cause on November 21, 1945; on April 30, 1946, hearing was had on testimony taken; order was entered increasing the award for support for each of the minor sons in the amount of $50 per month, beginning November 10, 1945. The order also required payment of $75 doctor bills, and made other requirements, the which are not material to be considered in determination of this cause.

The June 7, 1946 order relieved appellant of certain requirements stated in the order of April 30, 1946, but continued the obligation to pay the doctor bills of $75 and the increased support from November 10, 1945.

Appellant here contends the testimony in the cause did not warrant or justify the findings of the court because (1) it fails to show the sons were in need of any increased allowance, and (2) that it was not shown that appellant's financial status had improved to the extent warranting the increase (3) that the...