JOHN PAUL FOTORNY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JEANNE HELEN JUBACK FOTORNY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 affirmed the increase in alimony but reversed the trial court's decision regarding the retroactivity of the payments, remanding for correction.
Following a 1968 divorce, child support and alimony were modified several times. In 1978, the wife petitioned for an increase in alimony, which the tr…
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 Petition For Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The parties to this litigation were divorced in 1968, when the appellant, husband, was ordered to pay to the appellee, wife, thirty dollars per week child support and five dollars per week alimony. In January, 1971, the child support was modified to thirty-five dollars per week. In April, 1974, by agreement, the child support was again modified, this time to sixty dollars per week. The record does not indicate any attempt by the appellee to have the alimony increased until the present petition was filed in August, 1978.
The appellant appeals an order entered in April 12, 1979 again modifying the child support payments, and for the first time increasing the alimony from five dollars to twenty-five dollars per week. Only the alimony award is appealed. The appellee cross-appeals, contending that the new payments should have been made retroactive to the date of filing her petition for modification.
The record supports the trial court’s finding of a substantial change of circumstances warranting the increase in alimony and we affirm that portion of the order. See, Steinau v. Steinau, 343 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
The trial court erred, however, by not making the support payments retroactive to the date of filing the petition for modification. Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Buckley v. Buckley, 343 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972); Steinau, supra.
The order of modification increasing the child support and alimony is affirmed and this cause is remanded with directions to correct the date of commencement of the support payments.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shufflebarger v. Harry L. Shufflebarger, M.D., 460 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…iedman v. Friedman, 307 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), we conclude that it was error for the trial court to deny the increase in child support for J.S. from the date the petition was filed until the date she reached her majority. Fotorny v. Fotorny, 397 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Steinau v. Steinau, 343 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Second, a court may order a noncustodial parent to maintain life insurance for the benefit of his minor child. Hinebaugh v. Hinebaugh, 403 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet.…
-
Perdue v. J.T. Perdue, 506 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…osition that her needs and the former husband’s ability to pay have been continuously present since that time, and under these circumstances, the award should have been made effective as of the date of the filing of the petition. Fotorny v. Fotorny, 397 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). We therefore affirm the award but reverse the order appealed from insofar as it orders the husband to make the increased payments only from the time that the judgment was e…
-
Fenner v. Fenner, 599 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…r, in the husband’s argument on cross-appeal that the trial court erred when it failed to establish the date of filing of the petition for modification as the effective date of the modification of child support and alimony. See Fotornoy v. Fotornoy, 397 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Buckley v. Buckley, 343 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), appeal dismissed, 362 So. 2d 1050 (Fla.1978). Therefore, on remand, we direct the trial court to change the effective date of modification of the husband’s child s…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Steinau v. Steinau, 343 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Buckley v. Buckley, 343 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)