STEFAN KIPPERT, APPELLANT,
v.
JUNE M. KIPPERT, 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.
Stefan Kippert appeals a final judgment dissolving his 19-year marriage, challenging the alimony and child support awards on grounds of insufficient income and assets. The appellate court affirms the trial court's judgment with modifications, reducing the father's obligation for ordinary optical and dental expenses and adjusting the child support reduction when the second child reaches majority.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dissolution judgment with modifications: (1) it struck the requirement that the father pay ordinary optical and dental bills for the minor children, though the trial court retained jurisdiction over extraordinary expenses; and (2) it modified the support reduction from $100 to $125 per month when the second child reached majority.
[1] A trial court may dissolve a marriage even if there are insufficient funds to support two separate households.
[2] A trial court has discretion to award possession of the marital home to one spouse for a limited time pending a child reaching majority or departing the premises.
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“This record demonstrates that sometimes the financial situation in which married people find themselves will not lend itself to the dissolution of a marriage because there are insufficient funds to support two separate households.”
Establishes the court's recognition of the financial hardship inherent in dissolving marriages with limited resources.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for approximately 19 years and had four children, three of whom were living with the mother at the time of dissolution and 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 Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, THOMAS H., Jr., Associate Judge.
By this appeal, we are called upon to review the correctness of a final judgment dissolving a marriage of some nineteen years duration.
This record demonstrates that sometimes the financial situation in which married people find themselves will not lend itself to the dissolution of a marriage because there are insufficient funds to support two separate households. However, the parties herein sought and received a dissolution of marriage, and the trial judge did his best in making alimony and support awards under the limited financial ability of the husband. The parties had four children, three of whom were living with the mother and one who had already reached majority. She was awarded the possession of the marital premises for a limited time, pending the youngest child reaching majority or departing the premises. He awarded $375.00 a month child support and required the father to pay all optical and dental bills for the minor children. Upon the number two child reaching eighteen, which was to be shortly after the entry of the final judgment of dissolution, he reduced the support obligation of the father by $100.00.
The appellant has brought this appeal, contending that the financial aspects of the judgment were erroneous because of his limited income and assets. As indicated above, we can understand the plight of the appellant, but he brought the instant action and the trial judge did the best he could under the circumstances. We affirm the action of the trial judge, except as modified by striking from the final judgment that portion relating to the father’s obligation for ordinary optical and dental bills (of course if, during the minorty of the children there should be any extraordinary expenses of this nature, the trial court would always be open to consider this matter. See: § 61.14, Fla.Stat.). We also see no reason for the trial judge, after he had awarded support of $375.00 a month for the three children remaining at home, to reduce the award only $100.00 when the number two child reached majority. We therefore modify the final judgment to require a reduction of $125.00 in support obligation at the time the number two child reached majority.1
Therefore, except as modified herein, the final judgment of dissolution here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur. . This reduction shall be effective as of the date of the entry of the mandate on this opinion.