LYDIA L. PALMER, APPELLANT,
v.
STANFORD B. PALMER, JR., 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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's alimony award, finding it was an abuse of discretion to award the wife only $10 per week alimony and only a portion of the homestead property after 35 years of marriage. The court required modification to award the wife all of the homestead property and increase alimony to at least $20 per week.
The trial court abused its discretion and the award must be reversed. The wife should receive all of the homestead property (not just a portion) and permanent alimony of at least $20 per week (not $10), given the 35-year marriage, wide earnings disparity, and the husband's $17,500 profit-sharing plan interest.
[1] Alimony awards will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion in awarding alimony when it fails to consider the length of the marriage, the disparity in earning abilities of the parties, and the h…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Great weight is accorded to the findings and judgment of the chancellor and alimony awards will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.”
Establishes the standard of review for alimony awards on appeal, requiring a showing of abuse of discretion to overturn.
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 35 years and have three grown children. The husband, age 57, is a welder earning $16,263.28 annually plus additional stoc…
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 Homestead Property cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Appellant wife contends that the trial court erred in awarding her only $10 per week alimony and in awarding her only a portion of the homestead property as permanent alimony.
The parties were married for 35 years and raised three children, all now grown. The wife is 57 years old and the husband is approximately the same age. The husband is a welder and has been employed by the same company continuously for the past 22 years. His earnings for 1974 were $16,-263.28 and he realized an additional $3,893 from sale of stock. He testified that he had $600 to $700 in the bank and that his interest in a profit-sharing plan with his employer was around $17,500. The husband separated from the wife in 1970 and since 1972 has been living with another woman in Alabama and providing her with support. He has made no contributions to his wife except for a few token amounts.
The wife has been employed at a cigar factory off and on for the past 40 years and earns an average of $78.27 per week. The home property consists of a small frame four-room house sitting on about six acres of land in the suburbs of Jacksonville, Florida. The parties purchased the property in 1963 for $7,000 and the tax assessment valuation for the house and land is $18,300. The wife’s testimony is uncontradicted that the house is in a "very bad” state of repair and that she has been given a short period of time by the authorities to repair it or they will bring an action against her. She owns no other property, has no savings and is totally dependent upon her earnings for support. The cigar factory where she works is being automated and she is in danger of losing her job. Out of approximately six acres homestead property of the parties, the trial court carved approximately one acre on which the house stands and awarded the husband’s one-half interest in it to the wife as lump sum alimony.
Great weight is accorded to the findings and judgment of the chancellor and alimony awards will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Dorman v. Dorman, 332 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1 DCA 1976). Here, because of the length of this marriage, the wide disparity between the earning abilities of the parties and the husband’s $17,500 interest in the profit-sharing plan with his employer, we consider that an abuse of discretion was shown. The circumstances justify and require that the wife be awarded all rather than part of the home property and that she be awarded at least $20 per week permanent alimony.
Reversed and remanded with directions to modify the final judgment to award the wife the husband’s interest in all of the home property and to increase the permanent alimony to at least $20 per week.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sherye Bradley v. Bradley, 385 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…f having to also enter the work force for purposes of contributing to the needs of his wife of fifteen years. The court is well aware of the great weight which must be accorded the findings and award of alimony by the trial court. Palmer v. Palmer, 338 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Dorman v. Dorman, 332 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied 341 So. 2d 1081 (Fla.1976). However, in this case, where the husband is separated from the military service after twenty faithful years, he is rewarded an annuit…
-
Douglas v. Douglas, 361 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…comparable age who has been involved in a business career. Under similar factual situations other district courts of appeal have utilized similar reasoning. See, e. g., Hawkesworth v. Hawkesworth, 345 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Palmer v. Palmer, 338 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Yohem v. Yohem, 324 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Only recently we reiterated the holding of Lash in Messer v. Messer, 342 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), where the parties had been married for 31 years. There the husband was…
-
Magarowicz v. Magarowicz, 429 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…t periodic alimony. The wife has a stable job and a home free and clear of any mortgage. Plus, she has not shown such disparity between incomes as demonstrating her need for, and the husband’s ability to pay, permanent alimony. Cf. Palmer v. Palmer, 338 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); and O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to reserve jurisdiction to award permanent periodic alimony in the future. Initially, we note that nowhere in th…
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
- Dorman v. Dorman, 332 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)