ANN I. QUINN, APPELLANT,
v.
MAXIE E. QUINN, 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 husband failed to demonstrate a significant change in circumstances required to justify termination of permanent alimony.
[1] A party seeking modification of an alimony judgment or agreement must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances or financial ability.
[2] When the amount of alimony is based on a party's agreement, a heavier burden rests upon the party seeking modification than would otherwise be required.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' property settlement agreement incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution provided for permanent alimony. The former husband soug…
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 Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant/former wife appeals an order terminating permanent alimony. The marriage of appellant and appellee/former husband was dissolved in 1972 after fifteen years of marriage. The final judgment of dissolution incorporated a property settlement agreement which provided for the payment to appellant of $50.00 a week as permanent alimony. Appellant lives with the three minor children of the parties and is unemployed.
In 1973, appellee filed a petition to terminate alimony, alleging that appellant had done nothing to rehabilitate herself and that she had told appellee she would never remarry because she enjoyed receiving alimony. The trial court granted the petition. Appellant claims this was error, and we agree.
Fla.Stat. § 61.14 (1973) which relates to the modification of alimony judgments and agreements provides that the court may consider changes in the circumstances or financial ability of either party and may make orders as equity requires. To justify a modification, the change must be significant. Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, Fla.App.2d, 1975, 307 So. 2d 845 (Opinion filed February 5, 1975); Howell v. Howell, Fla.App.2d 1974, 301 So. 2d 781. Further, whére the amount of alimony to be paid is based on an agreement between the parties, a heavier burden rests upon the party seeking modification that would oth erwise be required. Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, supra; Scott v. Scott, Fla.App.2d, 1973, 285 So. 2d 423.
The record indicates that appellee voluntarily entered into the property settlement agreement. The agreement contains no provision requiring appellant to seek employment. Moreover, the record indicates that since the entry of the final judgment appellee’s income has actually increased. The fact that his expenses have also increased because he has a new family is immaterial. Schiff v. Schiff, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 36; Williams v. Williams, Fla.App.2d, 1968, 212 So. 2d 778.
Appellee has failed to demonstrate the significant change in circumstances or financial ability of either party necessary to justify a modification.
Reversed.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freeland v. Purcifull, 347 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…In Scott v. Scott, 285 So. 2d 423, 424-25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) the court held that “[wjhere the amount of alimony is based upon agreement a heavier burden rests upon a party seeking a modification than would otherwise be required.” See Quinn v. Quinn, 307 So. 2d 848, 848-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, 307 So. 2d 845, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 322 So. 2d 914 (Fla.1975). The husband lives alone in a four bedroom, three bath house which he purchased and furnished after the final judgment of d…
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. Scott, 285 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Schiff v. Schiff, 54 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1951)
- Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, 307 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Howell v. Howell, 301 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Howell v. Howell, 301 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Williams v. Williams, 212 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)