JEAN M. MCNAMARA, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL T. MCNAMARA, 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 ex-husband failed to demonstrate a permanent change in circumstances justifying a reduction in alimony.
An ex-husband sought to modify his permanent alimony obligation, claiming a decrease in income after starting a private practice. However, evidence sh…
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 Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We reverse the trial court’s order granting an ex-husband’s petition for modification of alimony. The order reduced permanent alimony from $150 to $100 per week and suspended installment payments of lump sum alimony.
The evidence in support of the petition was that at the time of the dissolution the husband was employed as a physician at a salary of $52,000 per year and that three months after the dissolution he began a private medical practice and experienced no income from July through December, 1983. However, the husband’s own evidence showed that for the first three months of 1984 his net income was $15,662.
Not only was sufficient permanency of a decreased amount of the husband’s income not shown, but the evidence indicated an increased rate of income. See Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1954); Thibodeau v. Thibodeau, 461 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Withers v. Withers, 390 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), petition for review denied, 399 So. 2d 1147 (Fla.1981).
Reversed.
OTT, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Vroom, 480 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…to award vicarious punitive damages against Crown. We disagree. Even if the evidence would have supported such a damage recovery, which is not at all clear, see Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981); Adams v. Barnett Bank, 469 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), no jury instruction regarding vicarious punitive damages was requested. See Geary v. Starr, 418 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Actually, the main thrust of this contention may be to provide for vicarious punitive damages at the…
Authorities Cited
- Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1954)
- Stach v. Bartsch, 390 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Mathews v. Mathews, 461 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)