GLADYS E. HULSE, APPELLANT,
v.
REYNOLD N. HULSE, 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.
The court held that the former wife's monthly payments from the former husband's military retirement benefits were non-modifiable property distributions, not alimony, as explicitly stated in the final judgment.
The former wife sought to increase monthly payments from the husband's military retirement benefits, which were awarded to her in the final judgment 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 Military Retirement Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former wife, Gladys E. Hulse, appeals an order denying her Supplemental Petition for Modification of Final Judgment, and granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by the former husband, Reynold N. Hulse. Specifically, the former Wife sought to increase the monthly payments from the Husband’s military retirement benefits awarded to her in the final judgment of dissolution of their marriage entered some eleven years earlier. We reject appellant’s contention that based upon the decisions in Petty v. Petty, 548 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), and Robinson v. Robinson, 647 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the trial court was compelled to treat the periodic payments as alimony rather than as an equitable distribution. Unlike the judgments in those and similar cases, the Final Judgment in the case before us explicitly provided, in pertinent part:
2. Neither party shall be entitled to receive alimony....
16. The Wife ... shall receive as equitable distribution from Husband’s [ ] retirement or retainer pay from the United States Navy, the sum of $700 per month, payable monthly....
(Emphasis added.)
The trial court adequately addressed the factors considered in Petty and Robinson, in light of the explicit language of the Final Judgment, and found that the former Wife’s periodic payments from the former Husband’s military retirement benefits were non-modifiable property distributions, and not alimony. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s ruling, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition for modification. See, McIntyre v. McIntyre, 824 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Hughes v. Hughes, 553 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, BOOTH, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fort v. Fort, 951 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…servation of jurisdiction. § 61.14, Fla. Stat. (2005); Encarnacion v. Encamacion, 877 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Harman v. Harman, 523 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); compare Hulse v. Hulse, 873 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In the case on appeal, there was no reservation of jurisdiction over the distribution of property by the final judgment of dissolution. Thus, the award to the former wife of a property interest in the Coast Guard pension was fix…
-
Pullo v. Pullo, 926 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…the DROP account is actually a prohibited modification of a distribution of marital property. Florida courts uniformly agree that section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes, does not allow modification of a property distribution. See, e.g., Hulse v. Hulse, 873 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (observing that monthly amounts received as equitable distribution from husband’s retirement pay “were non-modifiable property distributions”); Spano v. Spano, 698 So. 2d 324, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[A] property distribut…
Authorities Cited
- Petty v. Eligia Jim Petty, 548 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- B.J. Hughes v. Hughes, 553 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 647 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- McINTYRE v. McINTYRE, 824 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)