DAVID C. KANGAS, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY JO KANGAS, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a provision in a divorce judgment that automatically increased the husband's child support obligations from $10 to $35 per week per child upon his future employment. The court held that contingent future modifications of support payments are disfavored in Florida because they lack an evidentiary basis and fail to account for the obligor's actual future ability to pay.
The automatic contingent increase in child support was reversed as too imprecise. The court held that while prospective modifications may be upheld in certain carefully conditioned circumstances, this provision failed because it bore no relationship to what the husband might actually earn and assumed his future ability to pay without evidentiary basis.
[1] Judgments providing for automatic changes in alimony and support payments upon the occurrence of future events are generally disfavored in Florida.
[2] Prospective modifications of alimony and support have been upheld when carefully conditioned upon specifically articulated changes in circumstances that virtually preclud…
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 intelligence“Judgments providing for automatic changes in alimony and support payments upon the occurrence of future events have not usually found favor in Florida.”
Establishes the general rule against contingent future modifications of support in Florida jurisprudence.
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 unemployed at the time of the final hearing after losing his job when Florida abolished compulsory motor vehicle inspections. The fina…
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
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Reciting that the husband was unemployed at the final hearing, the final judgment of dissolution ordered him to pay the wife support of $10 per week for each of their three children but provided that after he became employed, his child support obligations would increase to $35 per week per child. The husband had recently lost his job when the State of Florida abolished compulsory motor vehicle inspections. The husband contests the contingent future increase in child support.
Judgments providing for automatic changes in alimony and support payments upon the occurrence of future events have not usually found favor in Florida. Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Reid v. Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Richter v. Richter, 344 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). There is no evidentiary basis for the determination of future events, and there is an adequate procedure for modification when changes in the circumstances of the parties do occur. Stoler v. Stoler. However, certain prospective modifications have been upheld when they were carefully conditioned upon specifically articulated changes in circumstances which would virtually preclude the possibility of unfairness to either party. See Mills v. Mills, 417 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA July 23, 1982) (alimony increased by one half of the gross of increases in husband’s military retirement income); Spotts v. Spotts, 355 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (child support increased $10 per month per child for each $1,000 annual increase in husband’s income).
While clearly intended to be a practical vehicle to obviate the need of the parties to return to court when the husband obtains a job, we find the court’s provision for the future increase of child support too imprecise. While each child’s need for support of at least $35 per week might be assumed, the court had no way of foreseeing that once the husband procured employment his ability to pay would be commensurate with his obligation to do so. The amount of the prescribed increase bears no relationship to what the husband might earn in his new. job. Needless to say, our ruling does not preclude the filing of an appropriate motion for modification of the child support payments at such time as the husband obtains a job .or even if he fails to diligently seek one.
We reverse that portion of the judgment providing for the future increase of child support. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Sever v. Sever, 467 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…w. Unless evidence exists to support a finding that a wife’s financial picture will in fact change in the future, there can be no provision for an automatic reduction in alimony. Ramsey v. Ramsey, 431 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1977); Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We, accordingly, reverse the rehabilitative alimony provision of the…
-
Walker v. Walker, 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…nski v. Obrenski, 817 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Zelahi v. Zelahi 646 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Additionally, automatic changes in alimony payments based upon the occurrence of future events are generally disfavored. Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Prospective modifications may be appropriate when they are “carefully conditioned upon specifically articulated changes in circumstances which would virtually preclude the possibility of unfairness to either party.” Id. In t…
-
Ramsey v. Ramsey, 431 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…age of the child. Judgments providing for automatic changes in alimony and support payments upon future occurrences have usually been disapproved because of the lack of an evi-dentiary basis for the determination of future events. Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). It follows that a dissolution judgment which purports to consider future events as a basis for establishing current al…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Monserrate B. McNAUGHTON v. McNAUGHTON, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Richter v. Richter, 344 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Reid v. Demetria Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Mills v. Mills, 417 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Spotts v. Spotts, 355 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)