IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ROBERT M. MORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
SONJA M. MORRIS, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its awards for child support, alimony, property division, and costs/fees.
[1] A trial court's award of child support, permanent alimony, equitable distribution of marital property, and attorney's fees in a dissolution case will be affirmed if it fa…
[2] A spouse's election to fulfill the traditional role of wife and mother, and the other spouse's desire for that arrangement, can be considered when determining alimony.
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 intelligenceThe parties divorced after a 20-year marriage, with the wife having been a homemaker. The husband's income was disputed, and the trial court awarded c…
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 Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The former husband appeals from a final judgment in a dissolution case. He argues that the lower court’s award of $100.00 per week for support of the minor child, its award of $800.00 per month permanent alimony to the appellee, its division of marital property by way of equitable distribution, and its award of costs and attorney’s fees to appellee was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
The parties in this case had been married for twenty years and they had two children. At the time of the dissolution the wife was not employed outside the home; nor had she been since the parties married. This was because she elected to fulfill the traditional role of wife and mother and also because her husband did not want her to work outside the home. She was forty-four at the time of the dissolution. Prior to the marriage she had worked a short time as a bookkeeper, and the trial judge speculated that at best she might be able to earn a maximum of $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 a year. The court divided the marital assets roughly in half, but the assets awarded to appellee were not income-producing.
The amount of the husband’s actual net earnings were in dispute: between $30,-080.00 and $37,000.00 per year. The trial court remarked that the husband’s current income from his recently commenced solo law practice was below his past level of earnings and below his real potential. The court said it intended to award combined child support and alimony of approximately thirty-eight percent (38%) of appellant’s net income — a percentage within currently established guidelines.
The judgment appears to us to fall within the bounds of judicial discretion accorded to trial courts in dissolution cases. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1983); Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Hair v. Hair, 402 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Accordingly, we
AFFIRM.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., dissents, without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boylan v. Cooper, 482 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…1983); Condon v. Condon, 295 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). . See Kozelski v. Kozelski, 448 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (where appellate court found a child support award of roughly 15% of husband’s net income was inadequate); Morris v. Morris, 447 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (where appellate court found combined alimony and child support award of roughly 38% of husband’s net income was within bounds of judicial discretion).…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1983)
- Doyle Edward Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1983)
- McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Hair v. Hair, 402 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)