Hill
v.
Hill

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First DistrictFeb 5, 1976
326 So. 2d 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Severs v. Severs

    …This amount does not constitute an abuse of the broad discretion vested in the trial court in regard to…

  • Hair v. Hair

    …Again, this involves an area wherein the trial court is vested with broad discretion. Hill v. Hill, 326 So.2d…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. Y-184.

February 5, 1976.

Appeal from the Clay County Circuit Court, Henry F. Martin, Jr., J.

James L. Powers, of Powers, Folsom, Adams Smith, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Quentin T. Till, and James O. Brecher, of Taylor Brecher, Jacksonville, for appellee.


Each of the points presented by this appeal from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage were resolved by the learned trial judge and are supported by competent substantial evidence. While we probably would not have awarded the same amounts of alimony, child support and attorney's fees as did the learned trial judge, we can not say that as a matter of law he abused his broad discretion. See Dinkel v. Dinkel, Fla. 1975, 322 So.2d 22. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is

Affirmed.

Appellant's application for attorney's fees and costs incident to this appeal is denied.

BOYER, C.J., and SMITH, J., concur.

RAWLS, J., dissents.


Pursuant to appellee husband's petition for dissolution, this marriage of twenty-one years was determined. Custody of the parties' two minor children, ages thirteen and eleven, was awarded to the wife with the husband being directed to contribute $150.00 per month per child to the wife for the children's support. During their marriage, the parties had accumulated jointly owned material assets consisting of the marital home and furnishings, a coin collection valued at $3,500.00, and stocks valued at $2,000.00. The wife was employed as a secretary at a gross salary of $560.00 per month as compared to the husband's monthly income of $750.00 from his employment as a collections manager for a bank, together with $373.00 monthly retirement from the Navy.

The final judgment further required the husband to pay all reasonable and necessary expense in connection with special schooling for the youngest child, and any medical and dental expenses over and above those covered by hospitalization or medical insurance or benefits received from the United States Government on behalf of said minor children.

The trial court denied the wife any rehabilitative, periodic, or lump sum alimony. Exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home, together with all furnishings and fixtures, was awarded to the wife until she remarried or until the youngest living minor child attains the age of eighteen years. The wife was directed to make all mortgage payments, taxes or assessments and hold the husband harmless for and on account thereof.

It was uncontradicted that the home needed roof repairs in the approximate sum of $1,000.00.

In my opinion, under the undisputed facts of this case, the trial court erred in not awarding to the wife as lump sum alimony the husband's undivided interest in the marital home.