JERALD P. KING, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANETTE G. KING, 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 husband challenged the financial awards made by the trial court, including $2,000/month permanent alimony, a $10,000 lump sum, assignment of land, and a 90-day mortgage payoff requirement. The appellate court affirmed most awards as within the trial court's discretion but reversed the 90-day mortgage payoff provision as arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, allowing the husband to continue monthly payments instead.
The court affirmed all monetary awards and provisions as supported by the record and within the trial court's discretion, with the exception of the 90-day mortgage payoff requirement, which was reversed as arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. The husband is permitted to continue making mortgage payments in monthly installments rather than paying the entire balance within 90 days.
[1] Awards of alimony, child support, and other monetary considerations in dissolution of marriage proceedings are within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge.
[2] Appellate courts will not disturb monetary awards in dissolution of marriage proceedings unless they represent an abuse of judicial discretion or are patently erroneous.
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“It is well-settled that matters of alimony, child support and other monetary considerations lie within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge, based upon the evidence presented before him and due consideration of the needs of the recipients and the extent of the obligor's ability to meet these needs.”
Establishes the standard of review for divorce financial awards and the trial court's broad discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court dissolved the marriage between Jerald P. King and Jeanette G. King and awarded custody of three minor children to the wife. The court …
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 Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant has appealed from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which (1) awarded custody of the three minor children to the appellee; (2) awarded $2,000.00 per month to appellee as permanent alimony; (3) awarded appellee lump sum alimony in the amount of $10,000.00; (4) required appellant to pay the children’s school tuition and gave appellee the sole discretion in choosing schools for the children ; (5) required appellant to pay off the existing mortgage on the marital home in the approximate amount of $22,000.00 within ninety (90) days; (6) required appellant to assign one-half interest in certain parcels of land to appellee; and (7) required appellant to pay within thirty (30) days fees to appellee’s attorney in the amount of $10,000.00.
Appellant does not challenge the dissolution itself or the award of custody of the children to the appellee. What he does seek review of is the monetary awards to appellee, and abuse of judicial discretion in these matters is claimed by appellant.
It is well-settled that matters of alimony, child support and other monetary considerations lie within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge, based upon the evidence presented before him and due consideration of the needs of the recipients and the extent of the obligor’s ability to meet these needs. Such awards will not be disturbed by the appellate courts unless they represent an abuse of judicial discretion or are patently erroneous on the record. The appellant carries the responsibility of clearly demonstrating such error. Rogoff v. Rogoff, 115 So.2d 456 (Fla.App.3rd, 1959); Pross v. Pross, 72 So.2d 671 (Fla.1954).
We have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein and have heard oral argument by able counsel. Upon our consideration thereof, we conclude that, with one exception, the amounts of the awards and the provisions of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage find legal, substantial and competent support in the record. We therefore affirm all the provisions of the final judgment with the exception of that part ordering appellant to pay off the mortgage on the marital home within 90 days. We find this provision to be arbitrary and an abuse of judicial discretion, and can find no reason in the record why appellant cannot continue to make these mortgage payments in monthly installments. Accordingly, that part of the final judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to the trial judge to amend same so as to allow appellant to make the mortgage payments in monthly installments.
Appellee’s attorney is awarded $500.00 for his services in connection with this appeal.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions as hereinabove set forth.
SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Daugherty v. Georgette Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1975)…RUDD, Circuit Judge. This cause is before the Court on petition for writ of certiorari based on an alleged conflict with the decisions in King v. King, 271 So. 2d 159 (Fla.App.1st, 1973); Eaton v. Eaton, 238 So. 2d 166 (Fla.App. 4th, 1970), and Perla v. Perla, 58 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1952). Pursuant to Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b) (3), F.S.A., we have jurisdiction. On June 13, 1969, the Circuit Court in and for the Ele…
-
Mason v. Reiter, 564 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…that $2,000.00 per month was a reasonable amount of child support based upon the evidence presented before him and after giving due consideration to the needs of the child and the extent of the parents’ ability to meet these needs. See King v. King, 271 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Therefore, the court did not abuse it’s discretion in setting the amount of child support. The father next argues that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest for amounts awarded for medical expenses. We disagree…
-
Laraine Rose Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…f custody and support. Frazier v. Frazier, 1933, 109 Fla. 164, 147 So. 464; Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 456; Burnett v. Burnett, Fla.App.1967, 197 So. 2d 854; Gunter v. Gunter, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 743; King v. King, Fla.App.1973, 271 So. 2d 159. However, in order to provide a basis upon which the court can exercise such discretion, there must be some evidence concerning the parents’ respective financial positions, the needs of the child, and most importantly the child’s welfare and best in…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pross v. Pross, 72 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1954)
- Rogoff v. Rogoff, 115 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)