Thigpen v. Thigpen, R--471

• Decision Date: 10 May 1973
• Docket Number: No. R--471,R--471
• Citation: 277 So.2d 583
• Parties: Manly W. THIGPEN, Appellant, v. Margaret R. THIGPEN, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 583

277 So.2d 583

Manly W. THIGPEN, Appellant, v. Margaret R. THIGPEN, Appellee.

No. R--471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 10, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1973.

Grover C. Robinson, Jr., of Robinson & Robinson, Pensacola, for appellant.

David H. Levin, of Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellee.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

This appeal is from a final judgment dissolving the marriage heretofore existing between the parties herein. The sole point in issue challenges the correctness of the alimony award made to appellee-wife by the judgment appealed.

The facts are not in material dispute. The parties herein were married to each other on August 23, 1947, and lived together as husband and wife for approximately 24 years except for a one-year separation which occurred about five years before the final separation in 1971. Appellee is a high school graduate who was working regularly at gainful employment at the time of the marriage. She continued to work regularly for approximately eight months thereafter when she resigned in order to birth their baby. After the child was old enough to attend kindergarten, appellee resumed employment in an automobile sales business owned and operated by appellant-husband where she worked regularly for the next ensuing 15 years. During the period of this employment appellee became proficient as an office manager and worker in the automobile sales business.

At the time of judgment appellee was 49 years of age and appellant 48. Although appellee testified that she had no health problems, she did say she was then suffering from an allergy caused by use of cosmetics which affected her feet and prevented her from wearing dress shoes but not sandals or slides. At the time of trial she was being treated by a physician for this allergy as well as for nervousness induced by the pending dissolution proceeding.

During the period of this marriage the parties accumulated an estate consisting of cash, real estate, personal property, shares of corporate stock, and undivided interests in a dormant corporation. By the final judgment the estate was divided equally between the parties, appellee's portion consisting of the marital home and furnishings having an equity value of $22,000.00 subject to an outstanding mortgage of $16,000.00; the sum of $8,750.00 cash; automobile valued at $2,000.00; corporate stock valued at $13,300.00; and, the sole beneficial interest in life insurance policies on appellant's life having a face value of $40,000.00, the premiums on which appellant was ordered to pay and maintain in a current status.

The undisputed evidence reveals that at the time of judgment appellant-husband was and had been for some months prior thereto employed as an automobile salesman earning an average net take-home pay of approximately $750.00 monthly. During the same period of time appellee-wife was unemployed although on two separate occasions she had declined the opportunity of employment because of the allergy from which she was suffering. At final hearing appellant testified that since bringing this action he had concluded that it was a mistake to have done so because the marriage of the parties was not irretrievably broken and he felt that the differences which had arisen could be reconciled. Appellee, who had counterclaimed for dissolution of the marriage, disputed appellant's conclusion and insisted that the marriage was indeed irretrievably broken and could not be repaired. The only child of the parties is a married adult not dependent on her parents for support. Upon consideration of the foregoing facts, the trial court dissolved the marriage and awarded permanent alimony to appellee-wife in the amount of $450.00 monthly. It is this award which forms the focal point of this appeal.

We have carefully considered the pertinent evidence contained in the record but fail to find any reasonable basis on which the alimony award made to appellee can be sustained. The very heart of an alimony award is and always has been the need of the demanding spouse for support and the ability of the other spouse to respond. The new concept of the marriage relation implicit in the so-called 'no fault' divorce law enacted by the legislature in 1971 ¹ places both parties to the marriage on a...