DONALD L. GREENE, APPELLANT,
v.
JEAN BARBARA GREENE, 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.
In this alimony modification appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order increasing alimony from its original amount by $2,000 per month based solely on inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. The court held that while inflation is a relevant factor in alimony modifications, it cannot be the sole basis for increasing an award without evidence of changed financial circumstances or needs.
While the loss of purchasing power due to inflation is a factor to be considered in modifying an alimony award, it is only one factor and by itself is insufficient to establish a change of conditions justifying an increase in alimony. A modification requires consideration of multiple factors, including evidence of changed financial circumstances or needs.
[1] A mere decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a change of conditions justifying an increase in an award of alimony.
[2] While the loss of the dollar's purchasing power is a factor to be considered in modifying alimony, it is only one factor among others.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We agree with Pope that the loss in the purchasing power of the dollar is a factor to be considered in modifying an award of alimony; however, in our opinion, it is only one factor to be considered and, by itself, is insufficient to establish a change of conditions sufficient to justify an increase in an award of alimony.”
Establishes the court's holding that inflation alone cannot justify alimony modification
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced on October 29, 1970, with an original alimony award set at that time. In February 1978, the former wife petitioned to modify…
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
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, respondent below, brings this appeal from an order entered by the trial court modifying the amount of alimony set forth in the final judgment of divorce between him and appellee, petitioner below. This order modified the final judgment of divorce to include $2000 per month as permanent periodic alimony. We reverse.
The final judgment of divorce in this cause was entered on October 29, 1970. In February of 1978, appellee petitioned the trial court, which pursuant to our opinion in Greene v. Greene, 256 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), reserved jurisdiction to award periodic alimony, to amend the final judgment of divorce to include $2000 per month as permanent alimony. The grounds for the petition were (1) that the original award of alimony did not contemplate the devaluation of the dollar’s purchasing power; and (2) that the original award of alimony did not contemplate factors which made appellee unemployable, and without resources for the rest of her life.
The record reflects that the sole basis upon which the trial court increased the original award of alimony, by the amount of $2000 per month as permanent alimony, was that because of inflation and the reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar appellee was entitled to the increase. In making this determination, heavy reliance was placed on Pope v. Pope, 342 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
We note that the record also reflects that appellee refused any inquiry into her financial needs, and that there was no evidence in regard to any change in appellant’s financial circumstances. We agree with Pope that the loss in the purchasing power of the dollar is a factor to be considered in modifying an award of alimony; however, in our opinion, it is only one factor to be considered and, by itself, is insufficient to establish a change of conditions sufficient to justify an increase in an award of alimony. See generally Taplin v. Taplin, 341 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and Carmel v. Carmel, 282 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
Because the loss of the purchasing power of the dollar was the only factor shown in the instant case to justify the trial court’s order increasing original award of alimony, the order-must be reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waldman v. Waldman, 520 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…receiving the alimony and the ability of the other spouse to pay. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). While a loss in the dollar’s purchasing power is a relevant factor in considering a modification of alimony, Greene v. Greene, 372 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), there must be a showing that the national problem of inflation impacts specifically on the individual claiming inflation as the basis for modification. Inflation must have in fact created the need. In Powell, this court affirmed…
-
Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…rosion of the purchasing power of the dollar falls not only on the wife but on the husband, and that factor alone might not justify an increase in alimony in the absence of a showing that the husband’s ability to pay has increased. Greene v. Greene, 372 So. 2d 189 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). However, in this case, as we have already noted, there has been an increase in the ability of the husband to pay. In sum, we find that there was substantial competent evidence to support the determination of the trial judge in th…
-
Powell v. Powell, 386 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…rd of living she had previously been able to maintain without working outside the home. Since the increase in the wife’s costs and needs was almost entirely caused by the ravages of inflation, however, Mr. Powell argues, relying on Greene v. Greene, 372 So. 2d 189 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), that it cannot be considered as a basis for the upward modification of alimony. We reject this interpretation of the Greene decision. In Greene, the alimony award was erroneously modified in the trial court solely on the basis of…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carmel v. Carmel, 282 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Greene v. Greene, 256 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Pope v. Generoso Pope, 342 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Taplin v. Sol Taplin, 341 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)