KATIE G. JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM A. JONES, 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 former wife appealed a trial court order reducing her ex-husband's alimony obligation from $750 to $250 per month based on a claimed change in circumstances. The appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish both a permanent and substantial change in circumstances required by law.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that any change in circumstances was either permanent or substantial, and therefore the trial court erred in permitting the modification.
[1] A party seeking modification of alimony payments must demonstrate both a permanent and substantial change in circumstances.
[2] A trial court's finding of a substantial change in circumstances, without further specificity, may be insufficient to support a modification of alimony.
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 intelligence“The party seeking a change in alimony payments must show both a permanent and a substantial change in circumstances.”
Establishes the legal standard required for modification of alimony obligations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties divorced in 1984. The appellee's gross income was $55,000 in 1983 (including a one-time $24,000 real estate commission), approximately $30…
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 Permanent Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
The former wife appeals the trial court’s order reducing the former husband’s alimo ny obligation from $750.00 per month to $250.00 per month. The trial court’s order found “that there has been a substantial change in circumstances” requiring modification, but was no more specific or detailed than that. We reverse and remand for reinstatement of the original alimony obligation.
The facts before the trial court pertinent to the modification petition were these: the parties were divorced in 1984; appellee’s gross income in 1983 was $55,000.00 (which .included a one-time payment of $24,000.00 from real estate commissions); his gross income for each of 1984 and 1985 was approximately $30,000.00 a year; his gross income for 1986 was projected (from nine months of actual income) to be $50,000.00. The trial court also had before it the fact that appellee had “subcontracted” for accounting firms prior to 1986, but was self-employed beginning in 1986 and his expenses had increased due to the change in employment.
We note that the trial court did not have before it any of appellee’s tax returns more recent than 1983. In addition, the 1986 business expenses claimed by appellee were only verified by appellee’s financial affidavit. Due to appellee's practice of writing checks before he obtained money and “holding” the checks until sufficient funds were deposited in the account before releasing them, there was no independent verification of appellee’s expenses in the record.
Given the above, we hold that the evidence before the trial court in this case was insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that any change in circumstances 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 $750.00 a month.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cowie v. Cowie, 564 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…t alimony from $600 to $475 per month. We reverse because Robert A. Cowie, the former husband, did not meet his burden to establish a permanent, unanticipated, substantial change in the financial circumstances of one or both parties. Jones v. Jones, 524 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Penland v. Penland, 442 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The parties were married in 1963 and divorced in 1986. At the time of their divorce, the husband was forty-four…
Authorities Cited
- Mathews v. Mathews, 461 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)