CORINNE CANNON ATTAWAY, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND COLEMAN ATTAWAY, 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 Florida Supreme Court vacated a trial court order that cancelled future alimony payments without notice to or hearing for the ex-wife, holding that such modification of alimony decrees requires proper statutory procedures and notice to the affected spouse.
The court held that the trial court erred in entering the order cancelling future alimony payments without notice to the wife and without opportunity for her to be heard. Such modifications must comply with the statutory procedures set forth in section 65.15, F.S. 1951, and the affected spouse must have notice and an opportunity to be heard.
“The foregoing order substantially affects the rights of the wife under the final decree of divorce. It was error to enter the same without notice to the wife and without opportunity to her to be heard.”
Establishes that modification of alimony rights requires notice and hearing for the affected spouse
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband was sentenced to six months in jail for failing to pay $544 in past-due alimony. Twelve days later, without notice to the wife or her coun…
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 Notice Of Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Chief Justice.
Pursuant to the wife’s application and after hearing pursuant to due notice the Circuit Judge sentenced the defendant husband to six months in jail for failure to pay the sum of $544, past due alimony. The order provided that the. husband could purge hirpself of the contempt by payment of such alimony before a designated time.. Twelve days later and without notice to the wife, or .her counsel,,the record shows the entry of the following. order, which affords the basis, of this appeal: ,
“The above named plaintiff was brought before the Court arid placed in the county jail to await a 'hearing, arid upon his promise to pay all back payments now due under the decree of this court to his former wife, that all future payments would be cancelled.
“This order is now in view of the fact that he is supporting a daughter who is of school age by a former wife and his income is not adequate to pay any further sums to the defendant.”
The foregoing order substantially affects the rights'of the wife under the final decree of divorce. It was error to enter the same without notice, to the wife and without opportunity to her to be heard. Moreover the record fails to show any attempt to comply with the provisions of section 65.15, F.S. 1951, F.S.A., relating to the modification of alimony decrees and agreements.
The decree, appealed from is hereby vacated without prejudice, however, to the appellee to make application .for modification of alimony pursuant to the provisions of section 65.15, supra. See Schiff v. Schiff, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 36; Gaffny v. Gaffny, 129 Fla. 172, 176 So. 68; Belford v. Belford, 1947, 159 Fla. 547, 32 So. 2d 312; Chastain v. Chastain, Fla. 1954, 73 So. 2d 66; Crosby v. Calhoun, Fla.1954, 76 So. 2d 297.
TERRELL and ROBERTS, JJ., and PARKS, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Belford v. Belford, 159 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1947)
- Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1954)
- Gaffny v. Blanche E. Gaffny, 129 Fla. 172 (Fla. 1937)
- Schiff v. Schiff, 54 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1951)
- Crosby v. Calhoun, 76 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1954)