EILEEN ROSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
GENE ROSEN, 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 reversed a modification reducing permanent periodic alimony because the trial court's stated bases for modification (excluding a paternal gift) did not reflect a significant change in circumstance, and remanded to reconsider only the impact of the gift's interest income on alimony needs.
A modification of permanent periodic alimony must be based on a substantial change in circumstance, and the wife's previously known employability cannot support such modification, though a substantial gift generating annual income may warrant reconsideration of the alimony amount.
[1] A substantial change in circumstance is required to modify a permanent periodic alimony award, and a former spouse's employability known at the time of the original award…
[2] A substantial gift generating significant annual income may constitute a substantial change in circumstance warranting reconsideration of alimony, but the trial court mus…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEileen Rosen received a $100,000 gift from her father generating approximately $10,000 in annual interest income. The trial court modified a previousl…
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 Interest Income cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse a judgment that modified a permanent periodic alimony award previously affirmed by this court, Rosen v. Rosen, 426 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), because the bases for modification, excluding a $100,000 gift made to Eileen Rosen by her father, do not reflect any significant change in circumstance from the time of entry of the original award. Bashaw v. Bashaw, 412 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Specifically, the wife’s employability was known at the time of the previous award and, thus, could not be considered. Coe v. Coe, 352 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Howell v. Howell, 301 So. 2d 781, 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
However, the evidence of the paternal gift, which generates interest income of approximately $10,000 a year, could constitute the required substantial change in circumstance. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Turner v. Turner, 383 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1381 (Fla.1980). Appellant concedes as much in her brief. Nevertheless, we fail to see how that income could justify a reduction of $18,000 per year in alimony, which is what the trial judge ordered. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings solely on the issue of the impact of the annual interest income on Eileen Rosen’s alimony needs. At the hearing, it would be proper for the judge to consider the effect of inflation on the original alimony award. Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Greene v. Greene, 372 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)…J., and HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which GRIMES, J., concurs. SHAW, J., recused. . See Rosen v. Rosen, 576 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(Rosen V); Rosen v. Rosen, 528 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA)(Rosen IV), review denied, 537 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1988); Rosen v. Rosen, 478 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(Rosen III)-, Rosen v. Rosen, 426 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(Rosen II); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980){Rosen…
-
Candy W. Shiveley v. Shiveley, 635 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…t). A court may consider income from a gift which has already been received, but the fact that one has been relying on family largess should not be factored into one’s income for purposes of determining the need for support. Compare Ro-sen v. Rosen, 528 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied mem., 537 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1988) (trial court may consider income from gift which has already been received) with Bedell v. Bedell, 583 So. 2d 1005, 1008 (Fla.1991) (“[f]or the purpose of demonstrating need in dissolution…
-
Cowie v. Cowie, 564 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…f alimony, we hold that these modest intrafamilial gifts, which were clearly intended to help Ms. Cowie start a new life after her recent divorce, were not a financial change for which the former husband should receive a benefit. Cf. Rosen v. Rosen, 528 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (parental gift of $100,-000 which generated interest income could constitute a substantial change), review denied, 537 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1988). Second, the former husband established that Ms. Cowie changed jobs after the divorce an…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Turner v. Evabel M. Turner, 383 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- COE v. COE, 352 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Greene v. Greene, 372 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Howell v. Howell, 301 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Howell v. Howell, 301 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 426 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Bashaw v. Bashaw, 412 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)