A. L. FOWLER
v.
ANNE FOWLER
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 reviewed a lower court's refusal to reduce alimony payments. The court found that the husband's reduced circumstances warranted a reduction in alimony, despite a prior stipulation.
No, the lower court erred. The petitioner's reduced circumstances justified a modification of the alimony award.
“By stipulation dated April 22, 1946, and adopted by final decree, the petitioner agreed not to pay less than $100.00 for support of his wife and child.”
Establishes the initial agreement and court order regarding alimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner and respondent agreed to a $100.00 monthly alimony payment for the support of the wife and child. The petitioner later petitioned the l…
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.
By stipulation dated April 22, 1946, and adopted by final decree, the petitioner agreed not to pay less than $100.00 for support of his wife and child. By petition claiming reduced circumstances, he petitioned the lower court to reduce his alimony to less than $100.00 per month. The lower court refused. It appears that petitioner makes about $140.00 a month. Neither, according to the record, has other resources. We have authority, under Fla. Stat. 1941, Sec. 65.15, F.S.A., to modify alimony allowances, whether based on stipulation and decree or upon decree that rests solely on testimony. See Slade v. Slade, 153 Fla. 125, 13 So. (2) 917; Vance v. Vance, 143 Fla. 513, 197 So. 128.
$75.00 a month allowance to respondent is reasonable under the circumstances reflected in the case. Certiorari is granted. The order refusing to modify the final decree, which *101order is dated March 22,1947, is quashed, and the lower court is directed to modify the final decree as of March 1, 1947, reducing the amount of alimony petitioner is to pay respondent from $100.00 a month to $75.00 a month, payable to respond^ent the 1st and 15th of each month, until the further order of the court; the lower court to retain jurisdiction to increase or decrease said alimony after reasonable notice and hearing, as the proven circumstances may warrant.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, BUFORD, and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haynes v. Haynes, 71 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1954)…re, and, in most cases, did not purport to be a final relinquishment of alimony but merely settled the question of what periodic payments would be satisfactory to the parties, so as to obviate the taking of testimony on that issue. Fowler v. Fowler, 159 Fla. 100, 31 So. 2d 162; Cohn v. Mann, Fla., 38 So. 2d 465; Vance v. Vance, 143 Fla. 513, 197 So. 128. Inasmuch as the agreement or stipulation in the case at bar comes within the rule of the first group of cases above cited, and since petitioner has made n…
-
Cohn v. Mann, 38 So.2d 465 (Fla. 1949)…onstruing the statutory provision are as follows: "We have authority, under Fla. Stat. 1941, Sec. 65.15, F.S.A., to modify alimony allowances, whether based on stipulation and decree or upon decree that rests solely on testimony." Fowler v. Fowler, 159 Fla. 100, 31 So. 2d 162. "Where the parties have, by mutual agreement, settled their differences by compromise and the court has ratified the same in the final decree, a strong showing is required to modify the terms thereof." Webber v. Webber, 156 Fla. 396…
Authorities Cited
- Vance v. Vance, 143 Fla. 513 (Fla. 1940)
- Jordan v. Jordan, 153 Fla. 125 (Fla. 1943)