CHARLES C. CHILLINGWORTH, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
VANETTE A. CHILLINGWORTH, 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 held that there was no error in modifying rehabilitative alimony to lump sum alimony, even after the original judgment, due to compelling circumstances and the lack of a specific pleading supporting the award.
This case involves a dissolution of marriage where the wife sought modification of alimony from rehabilitative to lump sum. The modification was sough…
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 Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This was a bitter, protracted, emotional dissolution of marriage case that deserves to be finally laid to rest. We shall undertake to do so.
1. There is no error in the trial court’s modification of rehabilitative alimony to lump sum alimony some three years after entry of final judgment when the Wife’s petition therefor was filed seven months after judgment and before the expiration of the rehabilitative payments. Veach v. Veach, 407 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). This is particularly true where the three year space was attributable to a torturously delayed child custody dispute, continuances, and the unavailability of the judge originally assigned to the case.
2. There is no error in the trial court’s modification of alimony from rehabilitative to lump sum, particularly in view of the compelling circumstance of this case. Drainville v. Drainville, 427 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Lee v. Lee, 309 So. 2d 26 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1977).
3. The Husband complains that no pleading supports an award of lump sum alimony. This is without merit. Nusbaum v. Nusbaum, 386 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
4.As to the remaining points, we affirm upon authority of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Upon consideration of all points, authorities submitted, and arguments, the appealed order is
AFFIRMED.
BERANEK, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erde v. Erde, 503 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…e award of attorney’s fees to the wife. The balance of the husband’s arguments are well taken. There may be instances in which a lump sum alimony award could properly be made in a dissolution modification proceeding. Chillingworth v. Chillingworth, 451 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). However, we do not find the circumstances of this case sufficiently compelling to justify such an award. The modification order also provided: 4. The Wife is hereby awarded 50% of all military retired pay paid by the Departmen…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Ranelle M. LEE v. LEE, 309 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Veach v. Veach, 407 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Nusbaum v. Nusbaum, 386 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Drainville v. Drainville, 427 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)