MARIETTA MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
FELIX J. MITCHELL, 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.
Marietta Mitchell appeals the dismissal of her petition to modify alimony in her twenty-seven year marriage. The trial court found insufficient allegations of changed circumstances, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the cumulative effect of the allegations—including the husband's doubled income, the wife's total disability, loss of workers' compensation, children reaching majority, unexpected medical expenses, and inflation—sufficiently demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification.
The court held that while no single alleged circumstance might alone constitute sufficient change, the cumulative effect of all the allegations overwhelmingly demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances warranting consideration of modification. The court also held that because the alimony provision was not an integral part of a true property settlement agreement, it remained subject to modification under Florida Statutes § 61.14.
[1] A petition for modification of alimony may be sufficient when the cumulative effect of multiple alleged changes in circumstances, even if individually insufficient, overw…
[2] Periodic alimony provisions in a settlement agreement are generally subject to modification unless they are an integral part of a true property settlement agreement.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Perhaps no one of the above, standing alone, would allege a sufficient change in circumstances. Smith v. Smith, 458 So.2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). However, their sum so overwhelmingly alleges a change that we feel justified in reversing the dismissal without further comment or citation.”
Establishes the court's holding that while individual alleged circumstances might be insufficient, their cumulative effect can demonstrate sufficient changed circumstances for modification.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for twenty-seven years and had five children. They entered into a settlement agreement incorporated into the final judgment t…
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 Petition For Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The ex-wife appeals the dismissal of her petition for modification of alimony. We reverse.
Involved here is a twenty-seven year marriage and five children. The parties entered into an agreement, incorporated by reference in the final judgment, which provided, among other things, for alimony and support. The ex-wife seeks modification of the alimony and support. The trial judge found the ex-wife had not presented sufficient allegations of a change in circumstances. We disagree.
The petition for modification alleged that:
1. The Husband/Appellee’s income has doubled.
2. The Wife/Appellant has been ruled totally and permanently disabled.
3. The Wife/Appellant had been receiving $45.00 per week in workman’s compensation which is now zero.
4. The minor children who had been residing with the Wife/Appellant have reached the age of majority which has reduced income available to pay housing and other fixed expenses.
5. The Wife/Appellant has been hospitalized for unforeseen medical conditions which consumed over 50 per cent of her remaining assets; and
6. The real value of alimony ordered in 1978 had decreased by almost 50 per cent due to cost of living increases.
Perhaps no one of the above, standing alone, would allege a sufficient change in circumstances. Smith v. Smith, 458 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). However, their sum so overwhelmingly alleges a change that we feel justified in reversing the dismissal without further comment or citation.
A second aspect of the trial judge’s order, which must be addressed, is his finding that the original settlement agreement precluded any later petition to modify. Again, we disagree.
There is no suggestion that the periodic alimony was an integral part of a property settlement agreement and we quote with approval from Hendricks v. Hendricks, 515 So. 2d 1025, 1025-1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) as follows:
The alimony provision, however, specifically provides that the payments made thereunder are in “settlement of all claims the wife may have for temporary and permanent alimony” and that the periodic alimony payments will terminate if the wife remarries. It is not agreed that alimony is given in exchange for any rights the wife might have in the marital property. The alimony provision, being devoid of any indicia that it was part of a true property settlement agreement, was subject to modification pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1985). See Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
As a consequence, we reverse the trial judge’s order and remand for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bassett v. Bassett, 571 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…o the availability of such insurance. We affirm the award of alimony, finding that the evidence of the wife’s bad health and increased need, and the husband’s increased ability to pay, supports the trial [*533] court’s award. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 536 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); and Laurenzo v. Laurenzo, 522 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Our affirmance is based upon the record before us and the argument of the parties in their briefs, without consideration of the additional financial burden on the hus…
-
Cleary v. Cleary, 743 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…t for a modification of a judgment for alimony is that the payee spouse must demonstrate a material or substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the judgment. Bassett v. Bassett, 571 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 536 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Laurenzo v. Laurenzo, 522 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1988). In Laurenzo, the court affirmed an increase in alimony 16 years after entry of the judgment based on the payee spouse’s increased needs due to poor health, and payor spouse’s abi…
Authorities Cited
- Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- State v. Howze, 458 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Hendricks v. Hendricks, 515 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)