VELMA JEAN HENDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSS BARNETT HENDERSON, 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 a divorce case, the wife appealed the trial court's awards of attorney's fees, child support, and alimony, as well as the child visitation arrangement and the court's failure to address her claimed special interests in certain business and property. The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court's decisions but reversed and remanded on the property rights issue, requiring the trial court to adjudicate the wife's claimed special equities.
The trial court properly based financial awards on the husband's present circumstances and retained discretion to modify if future changes warranted. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding midweek overnight visitation, though the wife could seek modification if it proved detrimental to the children. The trial court erred in failing to adjudicate the wife's claimed special interests and equities, as a final judgment must settle all property rights between the parties.
“When this change is manifest or when there have been other substantial changes in the husband's ability to pay or in the wife's needs, then she, of course, may reapply and obtain a new adjudication in the light of these changes, at least with reference to support and alimony.”
Establishes that while awards are based on present circumstances, the wife has recourse if material changes occur affecting the husband's ability to pay or the wife's needs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife was awarded a divorce from the husband. The trial court awarded her certain amounts for attorney's fees, child support, and alimony based on …
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 Modification Of Support cases and more on FLexlaw
The wife was awarded a divorce. She appeals from certain portions of the final judgment.
She attacks as insufficient the amount of the award of attorney’s fees, child support and alimony. She is further aggrieved as to the kind of child visitation rights accorded to the husband. We have examined and assessed the record and find the trial court’s decisions in these connections to be in satisfactory accord with the evidence and within the limits of that court’s discretion. It was argued that the financial awards should have been larger because “defendant’s business is becoming healthier and healthier each year * When this change is manifest or when there have been other substantial changes in the husband’s ability to pay or in the wife’s needs, then she, of course, may reapply and obtain a new adjudication in the light of these changes, at least with reference to support and alimony. However, the trial court was quite correct in bottoming the awards on present circumstances. Chastain v. Chastain, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 66.
As to child visitation we agree that a midweek overnight visitation is unusual and not to be preferred. However, the trial court is allowed a wide latitude and discretion in this area and we are unconvinced that this discretion has been abused and reversible error demonstrated. Ritsi v. Ritsi, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 159. Likewise, we are helped by the comfortable knowledge that the wife may ask for modification if the visitation program does in fact operate to the detriment of the children.
Finally, the wife is aggrieved at the court’s failure to adjudicate and determine her claim to a special interest or equity in certain business and property rights. While the final decree recognizes *701that certain property is owned as tenants by the entirety, it is silent and reflects no decision as to the matter of the wife’s special equities. The husband tacitly recognizes this omission, as indeed he must, and simply asserts that the evidence ,as to certain assets was insufficient to support an award and as to other property suggests that, because of certain events which have happened subsequent to trial (which are not of record), her claim is moot. We say without difficulty that the law of this state requires a decision as to this issue, because a final judgment settles all of the property rights of the parties and bars any future action brought by either party to determine his or her respective property rights. Dockery v. Dockery, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 460; Shannon v. Shannon, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 428.
The final judgment is reversed with directions to enter judgment in favor of the wife as to such special interests and equities as she may be entitled, if any, under the evidence. In all other respects the final judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.
McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Villaverde v. Villaverde, 547 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…d’s potential liability to Medicare.4 The court should not base alimony or child support on uncertain future events. Elliott v. Elliott, 478 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Ramsey v. Ramsey, 431 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Henderson v. Henderson, 226 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Fourth, we find error in the trial courts failure to award interest at the legal rate provided in section 55.03, Florida Statutes (1985), on pension money awarded to the wife but not transferred to her. Yohem v. Yohem, 324 So.…
-
Simon v. Simon, 293 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…3 (1948); Smith v. Bollinger, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 881; Jones v. Jones, Fla.App.1962, 140 So. 2d 318; McEachin v. McEachin, Fla.App. 1963, 154 So. 2d 894; Thompson v. Thompson, Fla.App. 1969, 223 So. 2d 95; Henderson v. Henderson, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 699; Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, Fla. App.1973, 277 So. 2d 43. In addition, property claims must be put into issue in the dissolution of marriage action since the doctrine of res judicata is applicable even where property rights are not put into issue,…
-
Kernan v. Kernan, 495 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…improperly based on a future occurrence rather than on present circumstances, and thus erroneously shifts the burden of proof at any subsequent modification hearing. See Shapiro v. Shapiro, 452 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Henderson v. Henderson, 226 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); and Traylor v. Traylor, 214 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). The trial court should have properly considered the husband’s ability at the present time, not what might occur because of the possible benevolent attitude by the Inte…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1954)
- Ritsi v. Ritsi, 160 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Dockery v. Dockery, 43 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1949)
- Shannon v. Shannon, 101 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)