ANGELO JOSEPH SANTACROCE, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNE SANTACROCE, 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 court reversed a trial court's award of $75 per week child support and $10 per week periodic alimony to the wife, finding the combined award excessive relative to the husband's earning capacity. The court reduced child support to $25 per week, which both parties had suggested as reasonable, and reversed a contempt order based on the husband's financial inability to pay the original award.
The court held that the combined support awards were excessive, amounting to more than 65% of the husband's earning capacity and leaving him only $44 per week while the wife and child would have $165 per week. The court reduced child support to $25 per week, reversed the contempt order, and affirmed all other aspects of the judgment.
[1] An award of child support and alimony is reversible error when it exceeds the payor's earning capacity and is excessive under the circumstances.
[2] A trial court's order of contempt for failure to comply with an alimony and child support award must be reversed if the award itself is reversed due to the payor's financ…
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“The award against the husband would amount to more than Sixty-five per cent of his earning capacity and under the facts in this case would be excessive.”
Establishes the legal principle that support awards disproportionate to earning capacity are improper
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 married on July 14, 1963 and separated on August 27, 1975, having one son born September 3, 1966. The husband had a weekly earning capacit…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, JACK R., Associate Judge.
The appellant, respondent in the trial court, filed this timely appeal from that portion of a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage awarding lump sum and periodic alimony as well as child support to the appellee, petitioner below.
The appellant contends that the lower court erred in awarding the appellee child support in the amount of seventy-five dollars per week and periodic alimony in the amount of ten dollars per week. We agree and reverse.
The parties were married on July 14, 1963, and lived together as husband and wife until August 27, 1975. They had one son as a result of their marriage, to wit: Anthony Gerard Santacroce, born September 3, 1966.
According to the testimony, the husband had the capacity to earn One Hundred Twenty-nine Dollars per week, and the wife needed, in addition to her earnings of Eighty Dollars per week, One Hundred Dollars per week to meet her needs.
During closing arguments, the wife’s attorney suggested the sum of Twenty-five Dollars per week for child support, and the husband’s attorney stated that he felt Twenty-five Dollars per week was not unreasonable.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Court dissolved the marriage, awarded custody of the child to the wife, appellee, and ordered the appellant to pay Seventy-five Dollars per week child support, Ten Dollars per week periodic alimony, and Four Hundred Dollars attorney fees. The residence was awarded to the wife as lump sum alimony.
If this award was allowed to stand the wife would have One Hundred Sixty-five Dollars per week available to her and her son, and the husband would have Forty-four Dollars per week available to him. The award against the husband would amount to more than Sixty-five per cent of his earning capacity and under the facts in this case would be excessive. Nevins v. Nevins, 305 So. 2d 63 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1976).
In view of our holding herein relating to the husband’s financial inability to pay the support and alimony award, the trial court’s order of contempt for appellant’s failure to comply therewith cannot stand.
We accordingly reverse that portion of the Final Judgment pertaining to child support, and because of the peculiar facts of this case as to the need for child support, and the husband’s resources, we direct the trial court to enter a judgment awarding the wife the sum of Twenty-five Dollars per week child support. Additionally, the judgment and sentence for contempt should be, and they are hereby, reversed. The judgment in all other respects is affirmed.
McNULTY, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…gly, we affirm the modification order in all respects. Affirmed. BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and RYDER, J., concur. . Nicholson v. Nicholson, 372 So. 2d 178 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); DeHart v. DeHart, 360 So. 2d 1285 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Santacroce v. Santacroce, 347 So. 2d 815 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). . A CETA position is an employment opportunity created under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), 29 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. The salary of a person employed in such a position is paid with funds made available by Co…
-
Nicholson v. Glynn C. Nicholson, 372 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…statement due to increased withholding taxes. He is left with $10.50 per week to live on. The alimony award is clearly excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. DeHart v. DeHart, 360 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Santacroce v. Santacroce, 347 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Nevins v. Nevins, 305 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1976). The parties have accumulated no marital assets other than the home awarded to the wife, which is worth at least $60,000 and has two outst…
-
Todesco v. Todesco, 583 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…he husband’s present employment and lack of resources do not permit this court to affirm the amounts of child support and alimony contained in the trial court’s order.” The Cook court remanded for further proceedings citing Santacroce v. Santacroce, 347 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) and Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). With regard to the unstated cost of the child’s health insurance, the court in Oh v. Oh, 570 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), reversed the section of the final judgment requirin…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Freeman J. Nevins v. Nevins, 305 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)