Case ID: so2d_351/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. MILLS, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth RUSE, Jr., Appellant, v. Charlene RUSE, Appellee.
    No. EE-343.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Oct. 28, 1977.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1977.
    Charles Ruse, Jr., in pro. per.
    John E. Futch, Ocala, for appellant.
    Richard W. Withers of Becks & Becks, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of an award of $4,000 as lump sum alimony as ordered in a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage proceeding in which the experienced and able trial judge specifically found “that the husband is able to pay the same”. The final judgment here sought to be reversed is fully sustained by this court’s opinion in Brown v. Brown, 300 So.2d 719 (Fla.1st DCA 1974) which, unless and until receded from by this court constitutes a binding precedent on the trial court as well as this court. The final judgment appealed is therefore

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.

MILLS, J., dissents.

MILLS, Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent.

I would reverse because Ms. Ruse failed to prove her need for alimony and failed to prove the ability of Mr. Ruse to pay her alimony.

Ms. Ruse’s testimony that she did not need alimony was unrebutted. At the time of the final hearing, Ms. Ruse was earning $12,000.00 a year and Mr. Ruse was earning less than $5,000.00 a year.

I would reverse on authority of Hackney v. Hackney, 324 So.2d 179 (Fla.4th DCA 1975).