Vickers v. Vickers, 81-2276
| Decision Date | 06 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2276,81-2276 |
| Citation | 413 So.2d 788 |
| Parties | Bethany B. VICKERS, Appellant, v. Robert L. VICKERS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
An Appeal from a Non-final Order from Circuit Court, Dade County; David L. Levy, Judge.
Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik and Paul A. Louis, Bayard E. Heath and John L. Zavertnik, Miami, for appellant.
Robert I. Spiegelman, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.
In making a temporary alimony and child support award of $215 biweekly, plus half the mortgage payments on the parties' home for which the husband was obligated anyway, the trial judge observed that "the only thing I am doing is keeping everybody alive until the final hearing." This just-prevent-them-from-going-to-the-poorhouse-until-the-case-is-over view of the legal principle controlling pendente lite awards, which is directly reflected in the inadequacy of the sums provided, is both widely held and thoroughly wrong. The correct standard by which these amounts are to be assessed is instead the familiar one which balances needs as fixed by the parties' standard of living, on the one hand, and ability to pay, on the other. In Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla.1972), the supreme court approved a temporary award under which
the husband must continue to support his wife during coverture by paying generally the same expenses (omitting long range and vacation items) and by paying amounts he had been providing prior to their separation....
The court stated further:
The historical balance of 'need and ability' remains as the formula in determining alimony during coverture. This principle is repeatedly cited in the authorities as the basis for alimony, support and attorney's fees to the wife from a husband more able to pay; it continues to undergird support provisions despite the present changes in our divorce laws (now 'dissolution of marriage').
The order under review was thus not based upon a properly-founded exercise of discretion, but upon an error of law, see Wagner v. Wagner, 383 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); compare Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), and cannot therefore be permitted to stand.
There is no reason, however, to require either a further hearing as to temporary relief or that the trial court exercise its discretion upon the appropriate standard. 1 This is because for over six months after they separated, Vickers voluntarily sent his wife approximately $1,600 per month without order of court. 2 He ceased doing so--an act which inspired the proceedings below--not because of any change in Ms. Vickers' needs or his ability, but because he was informed by counsel that he need not continue. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher
...382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Adams v. Adams, 604 So.2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. denied, 614 So.2d 502 (Fla.1993); Vickers v. Vickers, 413 So.2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Since the first Mitzenmacher appeal, it is clear that the former husband's present inability to pay alimony has not chang......
-
Robbie v. Robbie
...where an appellate court deemed the amount of the award so insufficient as to amount to an abuse of discretion. In Vickers v. Vickers, 413 So.2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the third district reversed a $215 biweekly temporary alimony and child support award because the trial judge observed tha......
-
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, s. 83-2002
...party as fixed by the parties' standard of living and the ability to pay. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7 (Fla.1972); Vickers v. Vickers, 413 So.2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The order under review was not based upon the requisite consideration, but rather was improperly based on the wife's ad......
-
Luskin v. Luskin, 4-86-1424
...a balancing of "needs as fixed by the parties' standard of living, on the one hand, and ability to pay, on the other." Vickers v. Vickers, 413 So.2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (emphasis added). See also Herr v. Herr, 463 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Weasel v. Weasel, 421 So.2d 749 (Fla. 4th D......
-
Temporary relief
...but must be supported by evidence which demonstrates need for support and paying spouse’s ability to pay); Vickers v. Vickers, 413 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (reversing $215 biweekly temporary alimony and child support award because trial judge observed that he was “keeping everybody ali......
-
Alimony and support
...consume 60% of husband’s net monthly income and leave husband with only $1000 per month for his sustenance); but see Vickers v. Vickers , 413 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (continuation of voluntary payments for temporary alimony pending final hearing).] §16:114 Children’s Expenses In consi......