LEROY PATRICK KELLER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY LEE KELLER, 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 1974 Florida divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's final judgment dissolving the marriage and awarding the wife child support of $172 per week for four children, the marital home as lump sum alimony, reduction of temporary relief arrearages to judgment, and attorney's fees. The husband challenged these financial provisions on multiple grounds, but the court found sufficient evidence and proper judicial discretion supported each award.
The court affirmed all financial provisions of the divorce judgment. Child support was proper based on competent evidence of the children's needs and financial circumstances. Lump sum alimony of the marital home was equitable as part of a proper division of marital property reflecting the partnership concept of marriage. Arrearages of temporary relief could be reduced to judgment as an exercise of the court's inherent power. Attorney's fees could not be reviewed due to the husband's failure to provide the transcript of the fee hearing.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in determining child support awards, and such awards will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.
[2] A trial court may award a marital home as lump sum alimony based on the needs of one spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay, without requiring proof of a speci…
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“The trial court is vested with broad discretion on questions of child support, and we find no reason to disturb the award in this case.”
Establishes the high standard of review for child support awards and justifies affirmance of the $172 weekly support award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeroy and Mary Lee Keller were divorcing with four children ages three to fourteen. The trial court awarded the wife $172 per week in child support, t…
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 Best Interests Of The Children cases and more on FLexlaw
[*796] HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant-respondent appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, attacking various financial provisions which the court made to the petitioner-wife, the appellee herein. We affirm.
By his first two points, the appellant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the award of $172 per week in child support to the couple’s four children, ages three to fourteen, and the award of the marital home to the wife as lump sum alimony.
Under the first point, appellant contends that nowhere in the record on appeal is there testimony or evidence concerning the needs of the children. We do not disagree with the husband’s reliance on the principles of law found in Doane v. Doane, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 46 and Simonet v. Simonet, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 35.
However, our review of the record and transcript reveals to us that there was competent evidence before the trial judge concerning both the children’s needs and their best interests and concerning the parents’ financial situation. The trial court is vested with broad discretion on questions of child support, and we find no reason to disturb the award in this case.
Appellant’s second point urges error in granting lump sum alimony because the evidence did not establish a special equity in the marital home. This point confuses the legal distinction between the two. We find nothing to indicate that the wife was seeking to establish a special equity.
In our view, appellant has not shown that the trial judge failed to properly consider both the wife’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay lump sum alimony. The husband received full control over an upholstery business which he and his wife started, and the wife received the marital home. We think this equitable division of the marital properties comports with the recognized partnership concept of marriage. See, Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 825.
Appellant’s third point challenges the reduction to judgment of arrearages of temporary relief granted to the wife during the pendency of this action. The husband asserts that this sum should be a deduction from the lump sum alimony award, citing Frischkorn v. Frischkorn, Fla.App. 1969, 223 So. 2d 380 and Rankin v. Rankin, Fla.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 283.
Each of the cited cases concerned questions of temporary alimony pending appeal, and are inapposite in the instant case. The court retains the inherent power to reduce to judgment its previous orders pertaining to temporary relief which are in arrears at the time final judgment is entered. Cf., Young v. Young, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 28.
As his fourth point, appellant raises error in the award of attorney’s fees to the wife’s attorney, contending that there is no evidence to sustain the award. However, a hearing was held on this question, and appellant has not provided this court with a transcript of the hearing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether or not the trial court has abused his discretion. See Marlin v. Marlin, Fla.App.1967, 192 So. 2d 778.
For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Marriage of Joseph Peterseil v. Peterseil, 307 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…abused his discretion by awarding full custody to the wife and permitting her to determine which schools the children will attend. The paramount concern in child custody matters is the best interests of the children. Keller v. Keller, Fla.App.1974, 302 So. 2d 795; Mueller v. Mueller, Fla.App.1975, 307 So,2d 195. The trial court is vested with broad discretion in making such determinations. Unger v. Unger, Fla.App.1975, 306 So. 2d 540. The appellant cites three cases in which divided custody decrees have bee…
-
Igna S. Mueller v. Mueller, 307 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…and attorney’s fees are vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be demonstrated that the court clearly has exceeded the limits of its discretion. Keller [*197] V. Keller, Fla.App.1974, 302 So. 2d 795; Fesak v. Fesak, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 47. In this case, the court determined that the needs of the ex-wife and the ability to pay of the ex-husband, together with the paramount concern for the best interests of the minor child, justified a slig…
-
Ferriss v. Ferriss, 356 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…lump sum alimony. Compare Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1 DCA 1974); Maroun v. Maroun, 277 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3 DCA 1973); Linares v. Linares, 292 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974); Baker v. Baker, 299 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974); Keller v. Keller, 302 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974); Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974); Collazo v. Collazo, 318 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3 DCA 1975). AFFIRMED. [*897] McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concurs. BOYER, J., dissents.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Emil Rossodivita v. The King's Surf Ltd., 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Laraine Rose Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Frischkorn v. Thomasine G. Frischkorn, 223 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- MacKey v. State, 223 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Rankin v. Rankin, 275 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Simonet v. Simonet, 279 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Young v. Young, 65 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1953)
- Marlin v. Marlin, 192 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)