BETTY SUE MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
W. B. MITCHELL, 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, Betty Sue Mitchell challenges the trial court's awards of $100/month child support and $400/month alimony, as well as the court's authority to order sale of the marital home held as tenants by the entireties. The appellate court affirmed the awards and the sale order, finding no abuse of discretion.
The court affirmed all awards and the sale order. While $100/month child support might appear insufficient given the father's substantial income, it was not an abuse of discretion in light of the father's demonstrated intent to provide additional voluntary support, the child's young age, and concerns about the mother's ability to properly spend support payments. The $400/month alimony award was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court properly exercised authority to order sale of the tenancy by the entireties property following proper procedural requirements.
[1] A trial court may abuse its discretion in awarding child support when the amount awarded is disproportionately low compared to the obligor's income and estate, absent oth…
[2] A trial court may consider the obligor's intent to provide additional support beyond the ordered amount when determining child support.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“If this were the only fact to be taken into consideration, then it is our judgment that this would constitute an abuse of discretion. However, from the record it appears that it is the husband's intent to do much more for his minor son.”
Establishes that while child support award appears low on its face, contextual factors including father's intent to voluntarily provide additional support justify the amount.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW. B. Mitchell and Betty Sue Mitchell were married in 1946. A final divorce judgment was entered on April 21, 1971. The husband has an average annual …
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 Tenants By The Entireties cases and more on FLexlaw
W. B. Mitchell brought suit against his wife, Betty Sue Mitchell, for divorce. The marriage occurred in 1946 and the final judgment of divorce was entered April 21, 1971.
We have meticulously studied the record, the trial judge’s finding of fact and the final judgment. The appellant complains that $100.00 per month as an award of child support for one son constitutes an abuse of discretion, particularly when it is determined that the father has an average annual income of $67,172.83 and possesses a sizeable estate. If this were the only fact to be taken into consideration, then it is our judgment that this would constitute an abuse of discretion. *470However, from, the record it appears that it is the husband’s intent to do much more for his minor son. It also appears that the son is too young to have the money paid to him directly and the wife’s habits do not support her ability to see that the money would be spent on support of the child. We would point out that the trial judge retained jurisdiction to modify child support in the event the mother’s conduct should improve or in the event the father does not voluntarily live up to his responsibilities.
Appellant also questions the $400.00 per month award to her as alimony. We are not persuaded under the circumstances that the trial judge abused his discretion.
The last point assigned as error contests the judge’s authority to order the sale of the home which is held as tenants by the entireties. This court recently rendered an opinion, Rankin v. Rankin, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 489, in which we attempted to compile the cases construing the chancellor’s authority to partition property held as tenants by the entireties absent an agreement between the parties or by appropriate pleadings complying with the partition statute. The trial judge in his final judgment followed the procedural requirements of Chapter 64, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
We do not recede from the law enunciated in Rankin, since it appears that the intent of that law has been followed in the instant case. We do not believe that the best interests of justice and equity would be served by requiring a reversal simply to file additional pleadings for partition since the safeguards have been met.
We therefore affirm.
McNULTY, J., and DAYTON, ORVILLE L., Jr., (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.