NADINE MENDEL, APPELLANT,
v.
NORMAN MENDEL, 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 Florida divorce appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the husband's spending on an extramarital affair, arguing it was relevant to the parties' diminished financial circumstances. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding the evidence admissible because it related to the financial condition of the parties during the marriage and could affect the alimony award.
The trial court erred in excluding evidence of the husband's extramarital expenditures because such evidence is relevant to the financial condition of the parties during the marriage and may affect the alimony award. The matter must be remanded for reconsideration of the alimony award and the wife's application for court costs.
[1] Evidence of a party's extramarital affair is relevant to the financial circumstances of the parties during the marriage, particularly concerning expenditures of funds.
[2] A trial court errs in excluding evidence relating to a party's expenditures on an extramarital affair when such evidence is offered to demonstrate the financial condition…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Because this evidence related to the financial condition of the parties during the marriage, we find it relevant, since we conclude the trial court erred in failing to allow the admission of this evidence, we must reverse for consideration of adultery as it relates to the husband's expenditures of funds and the relationship of those expenditures to the economic situation in which the parties stand before the court.”
Establishes the court's holding that evidence of extramarital expenditures is relevant to determining financial circumstances and must be considered in alimony determinations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife and husband disputed the cause of their financial collapse during the marriage. The wife contended the husband depleted their finances by spe…
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 Award Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal by the wife from a final judgment dissolving the marriage between the parties. The wife seeks review of both the character and amount of alimony and the denial of costs. We reverse.
Although numerous issues are asserted on appeal, we limit our decision to the issue of the trial court’s exclusion of evidence offered by the wife on the issue of the husband’s extramarital affair as relating to his substantial expenditures of money during the marriage.
At trial the wife contended the financial circumstances of the parties were greatly depleted by the husband’s spending large amounts of money on an extramarital affair. The husband asserted the admitted financial collapse of the marriage was due to extravagant spending by the wife. The husband presented evidence in support of his theory of extravagancy by the wife but the trial court excluded cross examination of husband on the issue of whether he spent extravagant amounts on his extramarital activities. Because this evidence related to the financial condition of the parties during, the marriage, we find it relevant, since we conclude the trial court erred in failing to allow the admission of this evidence, we must reverse for consideration of adultery as it relates to the husband’s expenditures of funds and the relationship of those expenditures to the economic situation in which the parties stand before the court. Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1979). After hearing this evidence, the trial judge should reconsider the issue of alimony and the wife’s entitlement thereto, both as to character and amount.
The appellant also seeks review of the trial court’s denial of court costs totaling $716. Although the trial court awarded the wife attorneys’ fees, costs were denied. This issue should also be reconsidered on remand.
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings with reference to the admission of evidence pertaining to appellee’s alleged conduct regarding the expenditure of funds and the effect that evidence may have upon the award of alimony, and for the purpose of considering appellant’s application for allowance of costs. Since this remand may result in a readjustment of alimony which may influence other financial matters between the parties we vacate the judgment in its entirety except as it relates to dissolution and child custody. Bradley v. Bradley, 327 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williamson v. Veva C. Williamson, 367 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1979)
- Rufus v. Bradley, 327 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)