BERNARD RALPH BLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
ELEANOR LOUISE BLACK, 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 reversed a lump sum alimony award to a wife with substantial assets in a short marriage, finding error where the trial court attempted to reimburse her for alleged financial losses and where the wife herself testified she did not desire alimony. The court affirmed the divorce judgment and attorney's fees award but eliminated the lump sum alimony provision.
The court held that the award of lump sum alimony was erroneous and reversed it. The court affirmed that it was error to award lump sum alimony in an effort to reimburse the appellee for sums allegedly advanced during the marriage, and that where a wife has substantial assets in a marriage of short duration and indicates she does not desire alimony, the trial judge is not required to award it. The court affirmed the award of attorney's fees as within the trial judge's discretion.
[1] A trial court errs in awarding lump sum alimony to reimburse a spouse for sums allegedly advanced during the marriage.
[2] Alimony is not incumbent upon a trial judge to award to a spouse who possesses substantial assets, especially in a marriage of short duration.
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“It was error for the trial judge to award the appellee lump sum alimony in an effort to reimburse her for any sums allegedly advanced during the coverture.”
Establishes the primary legal error—that lump sum alimony cannot be used as a reimbursement mechanism for alleged financial losses during marriage.
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 mature individuals who entered into a short marriage that ended in divorce. The wife was a woman of s…
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 Alimony Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant and appellee, both mature individuals, entered into a marriage of short duration which ended in a final judgment of divorce. The appellee was a woman of substantial assets; the appellant was a man of very meager means. In her amended pleading, the appellee alleged that she had suffered certain financial losses because of activities of the appellant, and prayed for relief as follows:
***** *
“B. That the court will ascertain and determine the extent and amount of plaintiff’s financial loss occasioned by the conduct of the defendant and will order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff as lump sum alimony said amounts as determined by the court.”
******
At the time of the entry of the final judgment, the appellee was granted a divorce and awarded lump sum alimony in the amount of $4,160.00. She was also awarded attorney’s fees. The appellant has appealed and urges error in the award of lump sum alimony in light of the appellee’s testimony that she did not desire alimony and the difference in the respective financial positions of the parties, relying on the following authorities: Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 367; Heller v. Heller, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 35; Pendelton v. Pendelton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 499; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 514. And, further, that the trial court erred in the award of attorney’s fees.
We find mefit in the appellant’s first contention, and reverse the award of lump sum alimony. It was error for the trial judge to award the appellee lump sum alimony in an effort to reimburse her for any sums allegedly advanced during the coverture. Spears v. Spears, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 564. It has also been held that where the wife has substantial assets in a marriage of short duration, it is not incumbent on the trial judge that she be awarded alimony. Chaires v. Chaires, 1864, 10 Fla. 308; McCarter v. McCarter, 131 Fla. 561, 179 So. 760; Kahn v. Kahn, supra; Gordon v. Gordon, supra. This should be particularly true where she indicates that she doesn't desire alimony.
As to the attorney’s fees, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to make an award of attorney’s fees to a wife upon the granting to her of a divorce, notwithstanding a disallowance of alimony. Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 592; Silberman v. Katcher, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 726.
*777Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment of divorce here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed, except that same be modified by eliminating the lump sum alimony.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kahn v. Kahn, 78 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1955)
- Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 179 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Chaires v. Chaires, 10 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1864)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 192 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Spears v. Spears, 148 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Pendleton v. Pendleton, 189 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Cecily Silberman v. Katcher, 214 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Hungerford Convalescent Hosp. Ass'n v. Osborn, 151 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Heller v. Heller, 151 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- McCarter v. McCarter, 131 Fla. 561 (Fla. 1938)