JOANN ALFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE E. ALFORD, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's award of insufficient child support and denial of possession of the marital home. The appellate court found clear abuse of discretion and reversed, increasing child support and awarding the wife possession of the home during the child's minority.
The court held that the child support award constituted a clear abuse of discretion because it was unrealistic and inadequate, leaving only $82/month for food, clothing, medical care, and other necessaries after deducting the horse maintenance costs. The court also held that the trial judge erred in refusing to award the wife possession of the marital home during the child's minority, absent changed circumstances such as the wife's remarriage or change in the child's abode.
[1] An appellate court may order an increase in child support upon finding a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court.
[2] A child support award is clearly inadequate when the amount remaining for the child's necessaries, after deducting the cost of maintaining the child's horse, is only $82.…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The amount of child support is unrealistic — if the cost of maintaining the child's horse, $43.00 per month, is deducted from the support need arrived at by the trial court, only $82.00 is left for food, clothing, medical and dental care, and other necessaries for the child. This is a clearly inadequate amount.”
Establishes the standard for finding abuse of discretion in child support awards and demonstrates the inadequacy of the $62.50/month award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a minor daughter, age 14 at the time of the dissolution petition. The husband is totally disabled and receives a $722/month tax-free g…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Support Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
This is an appeal from portions of the order dissolving the marriage between the parties. The wife contends that the amount of child support awarded is insufficient and that the trial court should have awarded her possession of the marital home. We agree on both points, and we reverse.
Following the filing of the husband’s petition for dissolution and the wife’s answer and counter-petition, custody of the minor child (age 14 at the time of filing the petition) and possession of the marital home were temporarily awarded to the wife, and the husband was ordered to pay $200.00 per month temporary child support. Both husband and wife sought custody of the child. The wife also sought either the husband’s interest in the home as lump sum alimony or possession of the home during the child’s minority.
Husband is totally disabled and draws a tax-free government disability pension of $722.00 per month. While he was disabled, he worked as a night shift security guard in Alaska twelve hours a night, seven days a week from March 1976 to August 1977 and earned approximately $57,000.00 during that period. However, he testified at the hearing that due to his lameness and general poor health, he could not handle a regular security job, nor could he pass the physical required for a job as a security guard. Wife works as an office nurse and nets $656.00 per month. In addition to the usual expenses of raising a teenager, the minor daughter has for some time owned a horse for which the cost of maintenance and veterinary care is $43.00 per month.
Final hearing was held before a different judge. After the final hearing, the successor judge granted dissolution, awarded custody of the child to the wife, found that $125.00 per month was a reasonable amount for complete support of the child, and ordered that husband to pay half that sum, $62.50 per month. The judge ruled that neither party should be awarded exclusive use and occupancy of or any type of possessory interest in the marital home.
The law gives the trial judge broad discretion in determining the amount of child support. Kahn v. Kahn, 78 So. 2d 367 (Fla.1955). Nevertheless, an appellate court is justified in ordering an increase in support when it finds a clear abuse of discretion. McArthur v. McArthur, 95 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1957); Schultz v. Schultz, 290 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). We find such an abuse of discretion here. The amount of child support is unrealistic — if the cost of maintaining the child’s horse, $43.00 per month, is deducted from the support need arrived at by the trial court, only $82.00 is left for food, clothing, medical and dental care, and other necessaries for the child. This is a clearly inadequate amount.
The trial judge additionally erred in refusing to award the wife possession of the marital home during the child’s minority. Unless there is a change in circumstances, such as the wife’s remarriage or a change in the child’s abode, the home should not be disturbed until the child reaches majority. McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Accordingly, the portions of the dissolution order complained of are vacated and the cause remanded with instructions to award possession of the marital home to the wife during the child’s minority and to hold a new hearing for the purpose of determining an adequate amount of child support to be paid by the husband. In all other respects, the judgment of dissolution is affirmed.
OTT, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ity of the children in her custody or until she dies or remarries. This is a frequent provision is dissolution judgments and is generally deemed to be in part a discharge of the child support obligation of the non-custodial parent. Alford v. Alford, 364 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1977). The requirement that the wife be given credit on sale of the house for o…
-
Zeller v. Zeller, 396 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…would not always constitute error, such awards are so frequently ordered that they have become a generally accepted principle of the law of divorce. These awards are proper because they are in the nature of maintenance and support. Alford v. Alford, 364 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2nd. DCA 1978); Bailey v. Bailey, 361 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Robinson v. Robinson, 340 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The husband is a medical doctor specializing in pathology and earns in excess of $85,000 per year. The wife is a ce…
-
Dartha Killingsworth Thompson v. Thompson, 402 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…h parties' sides — even if such matters are relevant, and I submit, they should not be. Under these circumstances, [*1222] I would remand to the trial judge to reconsider the alimony award to the wife, without regard to “fault.” . Alford v. Alford, 364 So. 2d 1255 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Hall v. Hall, 363 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 370 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1979). . She did receive a $10,000 lump sum amount. . Fodor v. Fodor, 379 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 369 So. 2d 81 (Fla.3d DCA…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kahn v. Kahn, 78 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1955)
- Monserrate B. McNAUGHTON v. McNAUGHTON, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Maita P. Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Bettie B. Schultz v. Schultz, 290 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- McARTHUR v. McARTHUR, 95 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1957)