MURIEL GOLDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOEL LEWIS GOLDMAN, 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 case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's alimony award, holding that a wife who devoted nineteen years to homemaking and child-rearing while her attorney husband accumulated substantial assets was entitled to lump sum alimony rather than merely rehabilitative payments to compensate for her contributions to the marriage.
The trial court abused its discretion. The wife, who devoted her marital years to homemaking and child-rearing while the husband accumulated substantial assets and was entering his most productive years, is entitled to lump sum alimony rather than the limited rehabilitative alimony awarded.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in a dissolution of marriage proceeding by denying a spouse lump sum alimony sufficient to compensate for her contributions to the mar…
[2] A spouse who devotes her time during the marriage to child-rearing and household responsibilities, rather than acquiring material assets, may be entitled to lump sum alim…
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 husband is entering his most productive years, while the wife has devoted her time during the marital years to being a housewife rather than pursuing and acquiring material goods.”
Establishes the court's rationale for why lump sum alimony is warranted—the husband's future earning potential contrasts sharply with the wife's sacrifice of career opportunities.
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 nineteen years with three children ages 14-17 at dissolution. The wife worked as a file clerk briefly after marriage, the…
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 Contribution To Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Judge.
In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, the sole point on appeal posed by appellant-wife is:
“That the trial court abused its discretion in entering a final judgment of disolution of marriage denying the wife lump sum alimony sufficient to compensate the wife for her contribution to the marriage.”
We agree and reverse.
The parties were married for nineteen years, and there was no testimony as to either party possessing any material assets at the time the marriage venture was launched in 1955. The wife was employed as a file clerk for less than a year after the marriage, and then it appears that the wife was engaged in bearing three children (ages 17, 16 and 14 at the time of the dissolution) and devoting her time to rearing her children-and performing the responsibilities of a housewife.1 In 1972, for approximately seven months, the wife arranged fashion shows from which she netted $1,000.00. Other than the foregoing, the wife had no work experience outside the marital home. A few years prior to the dissolution, the wife inherited approximately $17,000.00 from her deceased parents ; the bulk of same having been expended by her in improving the marital home. The wife has recently acquired a bachelor’s degree in psychology and is pursuing graduate studies.
The husband, appellee, is a successful attorney, and during the nineteen years of marriage accumulated substantial material assets. At the time of the dissolution, the husband was enjoying a net yearly income of $28,000.00 and had a total net worth of $93,050.00.
By its final judgment, the trial court granted the wife: 1) exclusive possession of-the marital home which the parties owned by an estate by the entirety, and requiring the husband to pay the monthly mortgage payment, taxes and insurance thereon; 2) rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $350.00 per month for a period of 36 months; and 3) a 1973 Buick automobile which the wife values at $2,500.00. Computation of the material assets of the wife (not including the outstanding mortgage on the marital home which the husband is paying) reflects a net worth on her part of $47,200.00. The husband’s net worth (after deducting the mortgage on the marital home of $11,000.00, which he is paying), consisting primarily of liquid assets, is $93,050.00.
It is our conclusion that, pursuant to this court's opinion in Brown v. Brown,
the wife has been shortchanged. The husband is entering his most productive years, while the wife has devoted her time during the marital years to being a housewife rather than pursuing and acquiring material goods. The cause is reversed and remanded with directions that the trial court award to the wife lump sum alimony.
REVERSED.
SMITH, J., concurs.
BOYER, C. J., specially concurs.
. Tlie wife testified: “I do everything in the house. I do all — I do my housework. I cook and I clean and I run the children on all their errands and whatever has to he done. I do it.”
. Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla.App.1st 1974).
BOYER, Chief Judge
(specially concurring).
I agree that adherence to the time honored doctrine of stare decises requires application of the rule announced by the majority in Brown v. Brown, Fla.App.1st 1974, 300 So. 2d 719, thus in turn requiring reversal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clair Krasner v. Krasner, 339 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…en $776,000 and close to $3,000,000. From our examination of the record, we find substantial competent evidence to support and justify the award of permanent periodic and lump sum alimony. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Goldman v. Goldman, 333 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In Shaw, supra, the Supreme Court explicated that: “It is clear that the function of the trial court is to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the…
-
Cornelius v. Cornelius, 382 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ich the wife has been required to do actual housework and perform the chores of raising children, as well as the extent of her contribution to her husband’s successful career. Other cases which specifically followed Brown include Goldman v. Goldman, 333 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Johnston v. Johnston, 349 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Ruse v. Ruse, 351 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Any lingering doubts as to what factors should or should not be considered by a court when lump sum alimony is requested…
-
Ferriss v. Ferriss, 356 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…no solace in this court’s opinion in Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). While I dissented in that case it was endorsed by the majority of a panel of this court and must therefore be recognized as precedent. (See Goldman v. Goldman, 333 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)) However, our Brown decision is only authority for that which was there held. It is factually distinguishable from the ease sub judice. In that case, in the words of the writer: “While the husband accumulated material wealth, the…
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
- Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)