ROSEMARY T. ESKRIDGE, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN M. ESKRIDGE, 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 an automatic reduction in alimony is improper without evidentiary support for a future change in the recipient's financial position.
The wife, who had no employment during a 25-year marriage and had recently undergone major surgery, was awarded periodic alimony. The final judgment i…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
[*755] ANSTEAD, J.
In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage the wife claims error by the trial court as to the amount of periodic alimony awarded and in providing for an automatic reduction thereof in the future.
We find no error as to the amount of alimony awarded. However, our review of the record reveals no evidentiary basis for ordering an automatic decease in the amount of alimony.
The evidence revealed that the wife had no substantial employment during the 25 year marriage and had devoted her full time to her duties as a mother and housewife. Shortly before the dissolution the wife had major surgery and, although her recovery was normal, she was unemployed at the time of trial and had no immediate employment prospects. There was no evidence presented as to the current earning ability of the wife. The final judgment awarded the wife $100.00 weekly alimony to be reduced to $75.00 in six months and again to $50.00 per week in one year. Unless the evidence supports a finding that the wife’s financial position will in fact change in the future, there can be no provision for an automatic change in the amount of alimony awarded. Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). There is no evidence in the record to support such reductions here. If in fact the wife’s financial position should change substantially, the husband can apply for modification. Garrison v. Garrison, supra.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed with directions that an amended judgment be entered in accordance with this opinion.
DOWNEY, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davidson v. Murray Davidson, 410 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…meet her needs, cannot and should not be determined at this time. It is error to provide for a change or termination of permanent or periodic alimony based on the anticipated occurrence of an uncertain future event. See, e.g., Eskridge v. Eskridge, 381 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); McCloskey v. McCloskey, 359 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The award of “lump sum” alimony is modified to an award of permanent periodic alimony payable $200 per week.…
-
Hitt v. Hitt, 571 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…hat the receiving spouse’s financial position will in fact change in the future. Antonini v. Antonini, 473 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1986); Sever v. Sever, 467 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Eskridge v. Eskridge, 381 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). There was no such evidence before the court in this case. We affirm the judgments appealed with the exception of the final paragraph of section 4 of the AMENDED FI…
Authorities Cited
- Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)