Zohlman v. Zohlman
| Decision Date | 19 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--635,69--635 |
| Citation | 235 So.2d 532 |
| Parties | Leo ZOHLMAN, Appellant, v. Sylvia ZOHLMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack D. Burris, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Koeppel, Stark & Marks, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
Divorce litigation was commenced by the wife, appellee herein. In the final judgment of divorce, the chancellor granted the divorce to her, and ordered the appellant to pay, as periodic alimony payment, the sum of $1,250.00 per month; moreover, the chancellor also ordered the appellant to pay, as child support for the minor son of the parties, $300.00 per month until the son either attains the age of twenty-one or otherwise becomes emancipated. The court further ordered that the appellant transfer to the appellee the sum of $80,000.00, as lump sum payment of the appellee's property rights. There were other property settlement provisions contained in the judgment of divorce, and the final one pertinent to this appeal is the court's order that the appellant pay the sum of $10,000.00 as attorney fees to the wife's lawyers.
The appellant now contends that the chancellor abused his discretion by entering the above orders in connection with the property rights of the parties and the amount of attorney's fees. We do not find merit in the appellant's contentions. At the time of the divorce, the appellee was fifty-seven years old and evidence was adduced to demonstrate that she existed in a poor state of health. It was also demonstrated that the wife had no personal assets of her own. Her husband, however, was shown to be a man of substantial wealth. His health also was very poor at the time of the divorce, and it must be added parenthetically that his death occurred subsequent to the divorce proceedings. (In this appeal the appellee does not seek to claim any right against the deceased husband's estate in regard to the periodic alimony payments since such were contingent on the husband's survival.)
Evidence was submitted to show that the appellant had transferred business interests to his brother in return for consideration of the purchase of an annuity contract, under which the husband was beneficiary, which contract yielded approximately $55,000.00 per year. At the time of this transaction, the cost of the annuity contract amounted to almost One Million Dollars. There was also evidence to demonstrate that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meltzer v. Meltzer, s. 79-1725
...So.2d 175 (Fla.1975); Snider v. Snider, 375 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), appeal dismissed, 385 So.2d 760 (Fla.1980); Zohlman v. Zohlman, 235 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 238 So.2d 430 (Fla.1970); Frischkorn v. Frischkorn, 223 So.2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 229 S......
-
Panhorst v. Panhorst
...or enjoyment of any person other than the husband or wife).5 Harrod v. Harrod (1854) 1 K. & J. 4, 69 Eng.Rep. 344.6 Zohlman v. Zohlman, 235 So.2d 532 (Fla.App.1970), cert. denied, 238 So.2d 430 (Fla.1970); Parsons v. Parsons, 68 Wis.2d 744, 229 N.W.2d 629 (1975), overruled on other grounds,......
-
Schaeffer v. Schaeffer
...remand for the trial court to credit the husband in the equitable distribution scheme with the appropriate amount. See Zohlman v. Zohlman, 235 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). before us prohibits the wife from seeking protection or redress. See Plager v. Perlmutter, 159 So.2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA ......
-
Sisson v. Sisson
...1974); Schultz v. Schultz, 290 So.2d 146 (Fla.App.2d 1974); Langston v. Langston, 257 So.2d 625 (Fla.App.3d 1972); Zohlman v. Zohlman, 235 So.2d 532 (Fla.App.3d 1970) and Sommers v. Sommers, 183 So.2d 744 (Fla.App.3d 1966). We grant certiorari and quash the decision below, with directions t......