ALBERT E. SAULNIER, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
THERESA L. SAULNIER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's award of temporary increased alimony pending final hearing on post-judgment modification petition, holding that no statutory authority exists for such temporary relief and that the contempt risk to the payor creates irreparable harm.
A trial court lacks authority to award temporary increased alimony pending final hearing on a post-judgment modification petition under Florida Statutes section 61.14.
[1] A trial court lacks statutory authority to award temporary increased alimony pending final hearing on a post-judgment modification petition, as such relief creates imperm…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The basic flaw in such conclusion is that the husband became immediately subject to contempt for nonpayment of the temporary increase, which could have harmful, irremediable effects pendente lite should the husband ultimately prevail at final hearing.”
Court's explanation of why temporary alimony awards in post-judgment modification proceedings are improper
Husband appealed from two non-final orders in a post-judgment modification proceeding where the wife sought increased alimony. The trial court granted…
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 Temporary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a consolidated appeal from two non-final orders.
We affirm the order which denied the appellant/husband’s motion to quash service of process and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We reverse the order which granted appellee temporary relief by increasing the alimony being paid to her prior to final hearing on her post-judgment petition for modification filed pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979).
We find no authority for such award of temporary relief prior to final hearing in this post-judgment proceeding.
The trial court reasoned in making the award that appellant would receive credit for the temporary increase in the event the appellee wife did not ultimately prevail in her petition. The basic flaw in such conclusion is that the husband became immediately subject to contempt for nonpayment of the temporary increase, which could have harmful, irremediable effects pendente lite should the husband ultimately prevail at final hearing. The law can provide proper relief to a party seeking post-judgment modification, without the foregoing possibility for harm, by determining the relief at final hearing and making it effective as of the date of filing the petition upon proof of entitlement thereto. Buckley v. Buckley, 343 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), app. dismissed, 362 So. 2d 1050 (Fla.1978).
LETTS, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robbie v. Dwyn Daniels Robbie, 726 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…1993)(rehabilitative alimony reversed where there was no evidence in the record of a rehabilitative plan). . That a petition for modification was pending also did not give the court any authority to award temporary alimony. In Saulnier v. Saulnier, 425 So. 2d 558, 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we held that a trial court had no authority to award temporary alimony prior to final hearing in a post-judgment proceeding, as occurred in the case at bar. Instead, if the wife ultimately prevails on her petition for modif…1 / 2
-
Levinson v. Levinson, 895 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ification of those terms required a hearing and specific findings by the trial court. Until such time, the. final judgment of dissolution was the law of the case and the parties were bound by that judgment. Id. at 820. See also Saulnier v. Saulnier, 425 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We are aware that Robbie and Saulnier both dealt with alimony modification and not child support modification, but determine that that distinction is not significant. Next, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in…
-
Woodward v. Woodward, 442 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…en particularly sensitive to interlocutory orders in modification proceedings that could ultimately be inconsistent with the ultimate decision on the merits or could cause unnecessary and unforeseen difficulties pen-dente lite. Saulnier v. Saulnier, 425 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Accordingly, we think certiorari is both appropriate under the two prong test and necessary in this case. We grant the relief sought by the petition and quash the quoted portion of the trial court’s order. HERSEY and WALDEN, J…
Authorities Cited
- Buckley v. Buckley, 343 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)