MILTON PERLMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
EVELYN CLARK PERLMAN, 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 divorce appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a decree granting the wife a divorce, $600 monthly alimony and support, a $7,000 return of her investment in a filling station business, and one-half ownership of that business. The court reversed the award of the $7,000 investment return while affirming the divorce and remanding for recalculation of alimony and support, finding that awarding both the investment return and ownership interest would be duplicative and unjust.
The court affirmed the divorce and the $600 monthly award but reversed the $7,000 investment return and remanded for recalculation of alimony and support. The court found no error in failing to allocate the monthly award without a request to do so, but held that awarding both the investment return and ownership interest was duplicative and unjust.
“From a review of the record in its entirety, it appears apparent that the chancellor did not intend to give unto the wife $600 a month as alimony and support, together with one-half of the profits of the service station business. Any such award would have been disproportionate in light of the evidence as to the scale of living of the parties and the abilities of the husband.”
Establishes the court's interpretation that the chancellor did not intend a duplicative award and that proportionality to the husband's means is required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant husband and appellee wife were parties to a divorce proceeding. They had a six-year-old child in the wife's custody. The wife had invest…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant below, seeks review of a final decree of divorce granted to the appellee-plaintiff, wherein, in addition to the granting of a divorce to the wife and giving her $600 a month as alimony and support, the chancellor adjudicated that the wife was entitled to a $7,000 return of monies invested in a filling station business and decreed her to be a one-half owner thereof.
Appellant does not question the correctness of the chancellor’s adjudication of the divorce, but does question the propriety of the final decree in the following respects: (a) Insufficiency of evidence to support the award of alimony and support; (b) Failing to allocate the $600 per month award as to alimony or child support (there being a six-year-old child of the parties in the care, custody and control of the wife), and (c) Returning to the wife the $7,000 investment in the business and declaring her a one-half owner thereof.
From a review of the record in its entirety, it appears apparent that the chancellor did not intend to give unto the wife $600 a month as alimony and support, together with one-half of the profits of the service station business. Any such award would have been disproportionate in light of the evidence as to the scale of living of the parties and the abilities of the husband.
There was no error in the chancellor’s failing to allocate the award as to alimony and support, as the record fails to disclose any request for an allocation thereof. Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 456.
It would be unjust to give the wife the return of her investment in the service station business and also decree her to be a one-half owner therein. The record appears to amply support the evidence that she is a one-half owner in the business, but it fails to support the return to her of her $7,000 investment which, under normal circumstances, would be accounted for upon the dissolution of the business by sale or otherwise.
Therefore the final decree is reversed as to the award of the $7,000 and remanded to the chancellor to re-determine the amount of alimony and support, in accordance with the views above expressed. In all other respects, the final decree is affirmed.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. LEE, 262 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…d on top of that an interest in Lee Innkeepers, Inc., where, as stated, the loan proceeds realized from the pledge of the stock were used to create Lee Innkeepers, Inc. Lyons v. Lyons, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 137; Perlman v. Perlman, Fla.App. 1961, 134 So. 2d 263. Thus, it is and was our intention and holding that the wife was entitled to a one-half interest in the securities in question subject to the pledged indebtedness as it existed at the time of final hearing. It is not our intention to make the wife…
-
Perlman v. Perlman, 139 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed. See also Fla.App., 134 So. 2d 263.…
Authorities Cited
- Rogoff v. Rogoff, 115 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)