WILLIAM J. RAMSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN B. RAMSEY, 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 alimony and child support awards because the trial court improperly based the amounts on anticipated future inflation and increased expenses rather than current circumstances.
A dissolution judgment cannot establish alimony and child support amounts by considering anticipated future inflation and increased expenses, as this lacks an evidentiary basis for determining future events.
[1] A trial court may not establish alimony and child support amounts by considering anticipated future inflation and increased child-rearing expenses, as such future conting…
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“Judgments providing for automatic changes in alimony and support payments upon future occurrences have usually been disapproved because of the lack of an evidentiary basis for the determination of future events.”
Court explaining the established rule against basing support judgments on speculative future events.
A husband was ordered to pay $1,425 monthly in rehabilitative alimony and child support. The trial court justified the amounts by considering the diff…
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 Support cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
The husband complains that the court applied an improper standard in ordering him to make monthly rehabilitative alimony and child support payments totalling $1,425 because of the following provision contained in the judgment of dissolution:
4. That in setting the amount of alimony and child support, the Court has taken into consideration the fact that it is difficult for a former wife and mother to obtain increases and modifications in amounts of child support and alimony. Accordingly, the Court has established such amounts in this Final Judgment taking into consideration the likely effects of inflation and increased expenses by reason of the increasing 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 evidentiary 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 alimony and child support must suffer a similar fate. Accordingly, we hereby reverse the awards of rehabilitative alimony and child support and remand for the court to enter appropriately reduced amounts which will not reflect the possibility of inflation and increased child rearing expenses. Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed.
OTT, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Sever v. Sever, 467 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…dimin-ishments of that amount for the years to follow. 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…
-
Elisabetta La Monaca Antonini v. Antonini, 473 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…e will change in the future, it is error to provide for an automatic reduction in future permanent periodic alimony payments. Sever v. Sever, 467 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); McClung v. McClung, 465 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Ramsey v. Ramsey, 431 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and cases cited therein; Cooley v. Cooley, 409 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). There is no evidence in this record to support a finding that the wife’s financial needs will change five years hence, therefore that portion of the o…
-
Villaverde v. Villaverde, 547 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ort awards. The court should not have considered the husband’s potential liability to Medicare.4 The court should not base alimony or child support on uncertain future events. Elliott v. Elliott, 478 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Ramsey v. Ramsey, 431 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Henderson v. Henderson, 226 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Fourth, we find error in the trial courts failure to award interest at the legal rate provided in section 55.03, Florida Statutes (1985), on pension money awarded to th…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)