RAYMOND DRAINVILLE, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN SANCHEZ DRAINVILLE, 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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the husband's motion to terminate alimony and granting the wife's petition for modification.
Following a divorce, the husband was ordered to pay rehabilitative alimony and mortgage payments. The husband moved to terminate alimony, and the wife…
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
MILLS, Judge.
Husband seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to terminate support and granting wife’s petition for modification. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
Husband and wife were divorced on 20 April 1978. In the final order of dissolution, the trial court: (1) granted wife exclusive use of the marital home along with the furniture, fixtures, and appliances located therein; (2) ordered husband to make mortgage payments on the marital residence; (3) granted wife rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $75 per week for four years; and (4) reserved jurisdiction to modify, extend, or terminate the award of alimony depending on the circumstances and conditions existing at the end of that time.
On 5 April 1982, husband filed his motion to terminate alimony. Wife responded on 15 April 1982 by petitioning for an increase in alimony. After a hearing on the motions, the trial court converted the prior award of rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony and ordered husband to continue to make mortgage payments on the marital home. This appeal followed.
The record shows that wife is an elderly woman who has attempted but failed to become self-sufficient. After the divorce, she held various jobs, none of which earned her substantial income. The trial court found that terminating alimony at the present time would place wife in a dire situation. Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion in denying husband’s motion and in converting the rehabilitative alimony into permanent alimony. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chillingworth v. Vanette A. Chillingworth, 451 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…vailability of the judge originally assigned to the case. 2. There is no error in the trial court’s modification of alimony from rehabilitative to lump sum, particularly in view of the compelling circumstance of this case. Drainville v. Drainville, 427 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Lee v. Lee, 309 So. 2d 26 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1977). 3. The Husband complains that no pleading supports an award of lump sum alimony. Thi…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)