NORMA WATERS LINN, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
RICHARD EUGENE LINN, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 trial court erred in modifying permanent periodic alimony based on the husband's IRS collection efforts, as this did not constitute a substantial and permanent change in circumstances.
[1] A trial court is bound by a special master's factual findings and recommendations unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous.
[2] Poor management of income and resulting cash-flow problems do not constitute a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of an ali…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA former husband sought to modify permanent periodic alimony, claiming substantial change in circumstances due to IRS collection efforts. A special ma…
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 Substantial Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
TOBIN, DAVID L., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from an order modifying a previous award of permanent periodic alimony, and sustaining the former husband’s exceptions to the recommendations of a special master. The cross appeal has been abandoned.
The special master found that the former husband had not had a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the permanent periodic alimony order he was seeking to modify. The trial court, however, disagreed and found that due to collection efforts being exerted by the Internal Revenue Service, there existed a permanent change in the former husband’s ability to pay the alimony. The trial court declined to adopt the special master’s recommendation that the former husband’s petition for modification of alimony be denied.
This court finds that there was no basis for the trial court’s divergence from the special master’s recommendation. The special master’s report made a finding that the Internal Revenue Service’s collection efforts against the husband’s available monthly income was not an unanticipated change in circumstances that was permanent in nature. A trial court is bound by a master’s factual findings and recommendations unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous. Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The record herein supports the special master’s recommendation.
While it is evident that the former husband may be experiencing some temporary cash-flow problems arising from the manner in which he has elected to expend his income and deal with his monetary obligations, the poor management of one’s income is not the equivalent of a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of an alimony award.
The trial court’s order of June 4, 1986, is reversed and the original award of permanent periodic alimony contained in the order of May 16, 1985, shall remain in full force and effect from that date.
HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Mascola v. Lusskin, 727 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…rt his children. See also Pitts v. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (clean hands doctrine precludes court from relieving party of support obligations when decrease in ability to pay results from party’s own voluntary conduct); Linn v. Linn, 523 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 400 (Fla.1988) (self-induced income tax problems cannot justify reduction in child support obligations). The mere fact that while imprisoned the obligor will not be able to make actual payment of the support…
-
Pamella Haas v. Haas, 552 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…However, Barry did not address the issue of whether alcoholism is voluntary or involuntary and, therefore, it furnishes no basis for a determination that Thomas Haas’ diminished earning capacity is voluntarily induced. Our decision in Linn v. Linn, 523 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), review denied, 534 So. 2d 400 (Fla.1988) provides some guidance in this case. In Linn, we stated that the husband’s temporary cash-flow problems, resulting from the manner in which he chose to spend his income, did not equate to…
-
Robinson v. Robinson, 928 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…he trial court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the trial court may only reject these findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the Master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented.”); Linn v. Linn, 523 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla. 4th DCA)(“A trial court is bound by a master’s factual findings and recommendations unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous.”), review denied, 534 So. 2d 400 (Fla.1988). On appeal, this court must determi…
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
- Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)