Winikoff v. Winikoff, 75--1987

Decision Date09 November 1976
Docket NumberNo. 75--1987,75--1987
Citation339 So.2d 262
PartiesSidney WINIKOFF, Appellant, v. Margarita WINIKOFF, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl, and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellant.

High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant husband appeals from certain financial provisions of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage and supplemental orders amending the final judgment awarding attorney's fees.

The trial judge, in his final judgment of dissolution of marriage and subsequent orders, granted the following relief to the appellee wife: rehabilitative alimony of $2,000 per month for 18 months, lump sum alimony consisting of the husband's interest in the marital home and $150,000 cash, ownership of all art objects and antiques, $45,000 in attorney's fees and $880.83 in costs. The final judgment also provided that at the end of the 18 month period for the payment of rehabilitative alimony '. . . either party may petition the Court with respect to additional rehabilitative alimony . . .' Furthermore, in an order amending the final judgment, the court required the husband to continue to pay the tuition and educational benefits previously ordered by a Pennsylvania court for the education of the 22 year-old son of the appellee wife by a former marriage, who had been adopted by the appellant husband during the marriage. Another provision of the order provided that the court retain jurisdiction to see that the educational needs of the adopted son be carried out by the husband.

Appellant, in effect, asks this court to re-evaluate the evidence before the trial court concerning his ability to make the payments and to look into the propriety of the amounts of allowance provided for by the chancellor. We find, however, that we are precluded from such action by Shaw v. Shaw,334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976). As stated in Shaw:

'It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal before it. The test . . . is whether the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Subject to the appellate court's right to reject 'inherently incredible and improbable testimony or evidence,' it is not the prerogative of an appellate court, upon a de novo consideration of the record, to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.'

We believe that the judge erred when he provided that at the end of the 18 month period for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Kern v. Kern
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 12, 1978
    ...the child. 2 As a general rule, the legal duty of a parent to support his children ceases at the age of majority. Winikoff v. Winikoff, 339 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Fincham v. Levin, 155 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Perla v. Perla, supra. Of course, one exception to the general rule ......
  • West v. West, 80-343
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 3, 1981
    ...v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976).3 Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Winikoff v. Winikoff, 339 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).4 Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980). See Snider v. Snider, 371 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT