JOHN S. MATHEWS, APPELLANT,

v.

LINDA H. MATHEWS, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Kinne v. Kinne, 599 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
  …s not appear to have been an unreasonable undertaking because it is in the area, security services, to which his life work had been devoted, and (b) has no prior record of income, in contrast to, for example, the situation in Thibodeau v. Thibodeau, 461 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) which the wife cites; and (2) the amount of his reduced income is insufficient with which to pay what he must pay. After paying out of his approximately $32,000 annual income (consisting of about $29,000 from his pension and abou…
• Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
  …the evidence of these constant changes in the husband’s finances did not meet his burden of a “strong showing” of a “permanent” decline in his ability to make the alimony payments. Schiff v. Schiff 54 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1951); Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux, 461 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Bish v. Bish, 404 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It may be that when the husband’s finances become stabilized, through termination of the bankruptcy reorganization or otherwise, he will be able to prove that any post-judgment fi…
• Jones v. Jones, 524 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
  …stances was either permanent or substantial. The party seeking a change in alimony payments must show both a permanent and a substantial change in circumstances. Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Thibodeau v. Thibodeau, 461 So. 2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Since the requirements of the law were not satisfied, the trial court erred in permitting a modification. Thus, the order is reversed and set aside. The trial judge is ordered to reinstate the original alimony obligation of…