Case ID: so2d_287/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PEARSON, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry Adolph KELLER, Jr., Appellant, v. Christal Clark KELLER and Margaret Keller, Appellees.
    No. 72-1006.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 18, 1973.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1974.
    Heller & Kaplan, Miami, for appellant.
    Koeppel, Stark, Marks & NeWmark, Miami, for appellees.
    Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

On this action for divorce brought by the husband, issues relating to alimony and custody of a child of the marriage were contested and extensively litigated. From the judgment entered, the husband appealed seeking reversal of the court’s award of alimony to the wife and challenging as excessive the fee allowed to the wife’s attorneys. Based on cross-assignments of error the defendant wife sought reversal of the ruling of the court awarding custody of the child to the plaintiff.

Upon consideration of the several contentions of the parties, in the light of the record, briefs and argument, we conclude no reversible error has been shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

PEARSON, Judge

(dissenting in part).

The award of only $7,200.00 as alimony to the cross-appellant wife was, in my view, an abuse of discretion. The record shows that the wife has no assets and no income. She has no special skills and does not even have a high school education. The trauma of this marriage and the loss of custody of her child indicate the truth of her contention that she needs to continue under the care of a psychotherapist.

The cross-appellee husband has a stipulated net worth of over $3,000,000.00 and receives a yearly income of over $90,000.-00. The parties met while the prospective wife was working as a grocery store check-out girl. The wife was eighteen; she was married to her husband for seven years and bore him a son.

It is my view that the emancipation of women does not require that this former wife be cast adrift without resources or prospects. I would reverse that portion of the judgment allowing lump sum alimony in the amount of $7,200.00 payable at the rate of $50.00 per week and remand the cause for the assessment of rehabilitative alimony in accordance with the holding in Dash v. Dash, Fla.App.1973, 3rd D.C.A., 284 So.2d 407.

In all other respects, I would affirm the j udgment.