ELAINE A. LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES K. LEE, 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.
Elaine Lee appeals an order reducing her permanent periodic alimony from $860 to $645 per month after her minor child reached age eighteen. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court erred by failing to take testimony regarding the parties' intent regarding alimony reduction when the child became an adult.
The trial court reversibly erred in reducing the wife's alimony without first taking testimony on the parties' intent regarding reduction when the minor child reached age eighteen. The ambiguity created by paragraphs 5 and 12 of the final judgment, combined with the judgment's silence on this issue, required the trial court to hear evidence of the parties' intent before modifying the alimony obligation.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by reducing permanent periodic alimony without taking testimony on the intent of the parties when the final judgment is ambiguous rega…
[2] Ambiguity in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage regarding the reduction of permanent periodic alimony upon a child reaching the age of majority necessitates test…
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“In our view the trial court reversibly erred in failing to take testimony on the intention of the parties concerning reduction of the $860 alimony obligation when the minor child reached the age of eighteen.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court's failure to hear testimony on the parties' intent was reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a 1984 agreed final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the husband was ordered to pay the wife $860 per month in permanent alimony, with $50 per …
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 Settlement Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
Appellant Elaine A. Lee appeals an amended order on motion for clarification which reduces her permanent periodic alimony to $645.00 per month. We reverse.
The 1984 agreed final judgment of dissolution of marriage contained the following paragraphs:
Paragraph 5—
The Husband, beginning December 1, 1984 shall pay to the Wife as and for permanent alimony, the sum of eight-hundred sixty dollars ($860.00) per month payable on the first of every month, directly to the Wife or directly to any account the Wife may designate from time to time.
Paragraph 12—
Child support of fifty dollars ($50.00) per week shall be considered part of the eight-hundred and sixty dollar ($860.00) permanent alimony. The Wife shall not suffer a reduction of the eight-hundred and sixty dollar ($860.00) per month permanent alimony when the child is with the Husband.
The final judgment is silent as to whether the permanent periodic alimony would be reduced when the minor son reached the age of eighteen. Appellant argues that paragraph 5 of the final judgment awards her $860.00 per month as permanent periodic alimony and the child’s age has no effect on her right to receive this alimony. However, the appel-lee argues that when paragraphs 5 and 12 of the final judgment are read in conjunction the effect is to reduce his responsibility to pay permanent periodic alimony by $50.00 per week when the minor child reaches the age of eighteen.
During the hearing on the motion for clarification of the final judgment, the trial court indicated that his decision would be based solely on the transcript of the 1984 settlement conference upon which the final judgment was based. Thus, the court declined to take any testimony on the intention of the parties at the time the 1984 agreed final judgment was entered. The trial court ruled that since the son had reached the age of eighteen, the appellee’s obligation to pay alimony was decreased by $215.00 (4.3 weeks per month x $50) so that the appellee would only be obligated to pay $645.00 per month in permanent periodic alimony.
In our view the trial court reversibly erred in failing to take testimony on the intention of the parties concerning reduction of the $860 alimony obligation when the minor child reached the age of eighteen. The transcript of the settlement conference does not resolve the ambiguity created by paragraphs 5 and 12 of the final judgment, and the final judgment itself is silent as to whether the permanent periodic alimony would be reduced when the minor son reached the age of eighteen. Therefore, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the appellant’s permanent periodic alimony without taking testimony on the intent of the parties and we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.