PATRICIA JEAN PERDUE, APPELLANT,
v.
J.T. PERDUE, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1987-04-30
No. 86-1007
UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
506 So. 2d 72 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1987) Positive Treatment
Cited by 20 cases
Topics
Discretion Of The Court Modification Of Alimony

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
ORFINGER, Judge.

ORFINGER, Judge.

In this modification proceeding, we reject the former wife’s contention that the trial court should have granted her more alimony than the 100% increase which was given. We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in that regard.

We do agree, however, with her contention that the increased award should have been made retroactive to the time when the petition for modification was filed. The record supports her position 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 entered. We remand the cause to the trial court with directions to correct its order so as to make the increased alimony payments retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition for modification.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Kirkland v. Kirkland, 618 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
    …mony retroactively. Cf. Reeves v. Reeves, 586 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (where circumstances justifying an increased child support order existed on the date of the final order, trial court directed to make award retroactive); Perdue v. Perdue, 506 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (increase in alimony should be retroactive to the time the petition for modification was filed as former wife’s needs and former husband’s ability to pay had been continuously present since that time). This court’s opinion in Kir…
  • Witcher v. Petty, 534 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
    …as filed. The needs existed and the husband had the ability to pay at that time. Both the needs and the ability to pay have been continuously present since the time of filing. Singbush v. Cabrera, 519 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Perdue v. Perdue, 506 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court except for the commencement date of the increased child support payments. Those payments should be retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition for modification. AFF…
  • Alford v. Alford, 594 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
    …ll within the exceptions recognized in Stock-man. Additionally, Harry cross-appeals from the trial court’s decision to terminate Linda’s right to alimony on the date of the hearing rather than on the date he filed his petition. In Perdue v. Perdue, 506 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), this court found that the trial court erred in not making an increase in alimony retroactive to the date that the petition for modification was filed when the wife’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay were continuously p…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw