Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 70-574

• Decision Date: 17 August 1971
• Docket Number: No. 70-574,70-574
• Citation: 252 So.2d 825
• Parties: Jerome STEINHAUER, Appellant, v. Lossie S. STEINHAUER, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 825

252 So.2d 825

Jerome STEINHAUER, Appellant, v. Lossie S. STEINHAUER, Appellee.

No. 70-574.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 17, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1971.

Harry G. Carratt, of Morgan, Carratt & O'Connor, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

R. T. Shankweiler, of Patterson, Maloney & Frazier, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

MAGER, Judge.

This is an appeal by Jerome Steinhauer, appellant-defendant, from a final judgment of divorce entered in favor of Lossie S. Steinhauer, appellee-plaintiff. The final judgment of divorce awarded plaintiff custody of their only child and awarded plaintiff lump sum alimony, property rights and child support. This appeal is concerned with that portion of the trial court's order awarding the entire marital home to the plaintiff 'on account of her special equity therein and as for lump sum alimony'; and that portion of the order wherein the trial court specifically reserved jurisdiction for the award of alimony in the future if the circumstances justify such an award.

There is little if any factual dispute in this case; there is, however, an obvious conflict between the respective parties' interpretation of such facts as they relate to the final judgment. Plaintiff and defendant were married for approximately twenty-five years before divorce proceedings were instituted. The plaintiff-wife is 57 years old and the defendant-husband is 49 years old. For the last twenty years of their marriage both parties worked together in a drapery business known as Steinhauer Interiors. The wife entered into the interior design business shortly after the marriage of both parties in 1945. The husband worked with the wife in the interior design business for over twenty years. The parties maintained two checking accounts. One account was designated as 'Jerome Steinhauer and Lossie Steinhauer' and the other account was designated as 'Steinhauer Interiors'. The record reflects that both parties had access to both accounts and that both parties wrote checks against both accounts. The evidence is not clear as to when the 'Jerome Steinhauer and Lossie Steinhauer' account was opened; it appears however that the 'Steinhauer Interiors' account was opened some time in 1964 or 1965. The record reflects that while both parties worked side by side in the interior design business, each party apparently had separate jobs and customers in their interior design business. The husband's earnings from his customers went into the joint account and the wife's earnings from her customers went into the 'Steinhauer Interiors' account. The record reflects that the wife actually ran the business and that the husband worked with her performing such tasks as the measuring and the installing of fabrics, picking up of furniture, delivering of furniture, upholstering of furniture, picking up and delivering of fabrics.

We are given some indication from the husband's uncontroverted testimony as to the purpose of having these separate accounts and as to some of the functions the husband performed in connection with his wife's jobs or customers:

'Q (By Mr. Maloney) All right, sir. The purpose, again, you say was to keep your earnings pretty much in this account Jerome and Lossie Steinhauer, and Lossie Steinhauer's earnings in her account, Steinhauer Interiors; is that correct?

'A What was the purpose of it?

'Q Yes.

'A So that there wouldn't be confusion between her jobs and my jobs.

'Q All right. Well, did you feel that she had any separate funds of her own at all, or did you feel that you had equal right to any proceeds that were put into the Steinhauer Interiors account?

'A Well, I had as much right in the Steinhauer Interiors account as she had because I had done work for her on her jobs. I done all different kinds of work for her on her jobs.

'Q So you felt that that money was--

'A As much mine as it was hers.

'Q Okay.

'A Just like the money in my account was as much mine as it was hers. But she did help me on my jobs, too.

'Q Tell the Court, please, about your participation in your wife's jobs. What did you do?

'A Well, from its inception, if it was a drapery job I sometimes went and picked up fabrics for her, depending on who was making the draperies. I sometimes took the materials to the place to make the draperies. I hung all of them. I hung traverse rods. I picked up furniture, delivered furniture, done the upholstery work, just about everything that I could do to expedite her jobs.

'Q Now, when you did this work did you ever submit a bill to your wife?

'A No, sir.

'Q Were you ever paid for the work you did on your wife's jobs?

'A No, sir. I assumed it was a partnership and that when I worked for her she would work for me, and it would be evenly divided.

'Q Now, will you explain to the Court, please, how one account rather than another account was used for the purpose of paying regular bills?

'A It depended on which one had the most money, as to what bills would be paid.

'Q Does this explain why some bills were paid by you and some were paid by your wife?

'A That's correct.

'Q Out of different accounts?

'A Out of different accounts.'

With particular regard to how the business was characterized the uncontroverted testimony of the husband indicated:

'Q (By Mr. Maloney) Now, sir, Steinhauer Interiors, is that a partnership?

'A Well, when a husband and wife are in business from 1947 on up to a few months ago, they both work in the business, there was never any record of anything made as a partnership or a corporation. We just worked with each other, for each other.

Would you call that a partnership? I would say so.

'Q The answer is yes?

'A Yes.

'Q Okay. Now, what was the division, or was there any division as to the profits of the partnership?

'A There was no division.

'Q How about for income tax purposes?

'A We both filed together, jointly.'

With respect to the filing of a joint return the partnership return filed for the year 1968 indicated that the husband worked in the business only 20 per cent of the time. The uncontroverted testimony of the husband in explaining why the tax return showed his participation only 20 per cent of the time was:

'Q (By the Court) According to the partnership return, your wife devotes 100 percent of her time to Steinhauer Interiors and you devote 20 percent of your time?

'A I beg your pardon, sir? Who said that?

'Q That is what the tax return says. I want to know what you do with the other 80 percent of your time.

'A There's a misunderstanding then, sir. There's no truth in that at all.

Now the tax return may say that that is supposedly 20 percent, but the reason for my putting on the tax return that amount toward her was because of her retirement for social security purposes, so that she would get her social security first, which she does because of her age. But we both devoted full time to the business. There's no such thing as 80/20. It was 50/50, or 100 and 100.'

Again, under questioning from the court with respect to the husband's role in the business and the characterization of such business as a partnership, the following uncontroverted testimony of the husband reflects:

'Q (By the Court) Well, you had your jobs and she had her jobs?

'A That's correct.

'Q Under the name Steinhauer Interiors?

'A Yes, sir. It got so that we couldn't work together on the same job, planning it. There were differences of opinion, so we had to separate our customers where she had her customers and I had mine. And then I would go on her installations and pick-ups and deliveries to help her.

So I was devoting a lot of my time to her jobs, and then whatever time I could devote to my job, I would do.

'Q And you lumped these together under the partnership return; is that correct?

'A Yes, sir. It was a partnership. There was no difference of anything at all. This has not come up until I've left the house, that there was any difference at all. There's a witness outside, Mrs. Dilullo. She's a customer. She's an old customer. We've done about three houses for her and I've worked on every one of them, on every one of the jobs, put labor in it. My wife--it's her customer. And my wife planned the job and I done all the installation on the job.'

The foregoing testimony demonstrates that both marital partners participated together during their twenty-five year marriage in a joint effort to develop a source of income to sustain the parties and their child during their lifetime together. The trial court, however, found that the wife possessed a special equity in the marital dwelling. This finding appears to have been based upon contributions made by the wife towards the purchase of their current (Tyler Street) home in early 1966. The record reflects that the husband and wife owned together by the entireties a home located at 1810 N.W. 94th Street (1810), and the wife owned, in her separate name, a home located at 1800 N.W. 94th Street (1800). The 1800 dwelling was rented out by the wife and the proceeds were used to pay the mortgage payments on the 1810 dwelling. Although the wife owned the 1800 dwelling, the record indicates that the husband helped in the actual construction of the 1800 dwelling. In 1966 both dwellings were sold. The wife realized a net gain of $8,184.95 from the 1800 dwelling and these proceeds were deposited in the 'Steinhauer Interiors' account. The net proceeds of the sale of the 1810 dwelling were $10,178.39, and this was deposited in the 'Jerome and Lossie Steinhauer' account. In February 1966 the parties purchased the Tyler Street home for $25,000.00. Approximately $2,500 was the down payment with $4,184.00 paid at the time of closing. Of this total cash payment of $6,684.00, some $4,600.00 came from the 'Steinhauer Interiors' account and presumably the remaining $2,000.00 was drawn against the 'Jerome and Lossie Steinhauer' account. All checks, however, Were signed by the husband. In addition, the husband made a $9,000.00 payment from the 'Jerome and...