CHRISTIAN B. KING, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY S. KING, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a trial court's award of permanent alimony of $250 per month to the wife in a dissolution of marriage, rejecting the husband's post-judgment argument that changed medical circumstances warrant reversal.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony based on the facts presented at the final hearing, and post-judgment changes in circumstances do not provide grounds for reversal but may support a later modification petition.
[1] Post-judgment changes in circumstances do not provide grounds to reverse a trial court's alimony award but may support a modification petition in the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. King and Mrs. King divorced; Mr. King stipulated to transfer of the marital home to Mrs. King and the parties litigated only Mrs. King's claim for…
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 Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mr. King appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which awarded the marital home and its accompanying mortgages to the wife, and which also awarded the wife permanent alimony in the sum of $250.00 per month. From the record, it appears that Mr. King stipulated to the transfer of the marital home to Mrs. King. The only issue which the parties litigated before the trial court was Mrs. King’s claim for permanent alimony. We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding permanent alimony to the wife under the facts and circumstances presented to the trial court at the time of the final hearing. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
On appeal, Mr. King is unrepresented by counsel and strenuously argues that he is no longer able to pay permanent alimony because he has developed a serious medical condition since the final. hearing and is no longer able to work. These changes in circumstances after the final hearing are not a basis to reverse the trial court’s exercise of discretion at the final hearing, but they may make it appropriate for Mr. King to now seek a modification of the permanent alimony award in the trial court.
Affirmed. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.