JOHN BERRYMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
REA BERRYMAN, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of alimony termination where husband's earning capacity substantially diminished while former wife became self-supporting and achieved better financial position.
When a former husband's assets and earning capacity substantially diminish while the former wife becomes self-supporting and achieves a better financial position, denying termination of alimony obligations constitutes an abuse of discretion.
[1] Termination of alimony may be warranted when obligor's earning capacity substantially diminishes and obligee becomes self-supporting with superior financial position.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband and wife divorced in 1970 when husband earned $18,000 annually. Husband was forced into early retirement by Pan American Airlines while wife o…
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 Motion To Terminate Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-husband seeks review of an order denying a motion to terminate alimony payments to his former wife.
The parties were married in 1945. At the time of the 1970 divorce, the husband was earning $18,000.00 annually. The property settlement agreement gave the wife the marital residence in fee simple as well as support for two minor children and alimony payments. Subsequently, the wife found employment while the appellant was forced to take early retirement by his employer, Pan American Airlines. The court reduced his alimony and support payments in 1977 from $360.00 per month to $260.00, one child still being a minor. The evidence shows that appellant was living on a modest pension and selling his assets in order to meet these alimony and support payments. In 1979, after the last child became emancipated, the court terminated the support obligation but found the wife still needed $200.00 per month. Husband appealed.
On these facts where the assets and earning capacity of the former husband have substantially diminished while, at the same time, the former wife has become self-supporting to the point of now being in a better financial position than appellant, it was an abuse of discretion not to terminate the husband’s alimony obligations. Vilas v. Vilas, 153 Fla. 102, 13 So. 2d 807 (Fla.1943); Goldin v. Goldin, 346 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Anderson v. Anderson, 333 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Vilas v. Vilas, 153 Fla. 102 (Fla. 1943)
- Goldin v. Goldin, 346 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Modesto Bisono v. State, 333 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 333 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)