THOMAS W. PILL, APPELLANT,
v.
WANDA PILL, 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.
Thomas Pill appealed a trial court's denial of his petition to reduce alimony based on his ex-wife Wanda's cohabitation with another man who provided substantial financial and in-kind support. The appellate court reversed, finding that Wanda's undisclosed income from her cohabitant (47% of her reported net income) and the in-kind services provided constituted a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the alimony obligation.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that Wanda's undisclosed income from Guy ($150 per week) and the in-kind services he provided constituted a material change in circumstances requiring modification of the alimony obligation. The trial court must determine the full financial benefits derived from the cohabitation relationship, including both direct income and in-kind services, as well as the benefits Guy receives from the arrangement.
[1] A payor spouse may petition to terminate or reduce alimony upon a showing that the recipient spouse is cohabiting with another person and that this arrangement substantia…
[2] In determining whether to modify alimony based on cohabitation, a court must consider all financial benefits received by the recipient spouse, including in-kind services…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Although not reflected on Wanda's financial affidavit, the record indicates that in addition to taking care of the lawn and pool and making repairs to the home Guy also pays $150 per week to Wanda. The court found that this additional income, some 47% of her reported net income (not to mention the in-kind services performed by Guy), was insufficient to warrant modification. We reverse.”
Establishes that Wanda concealed substantial income and services from cohabitation, which the trial court improperly failed to consider in the modification analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas and Wanda Pill were divorced in November 1982 after a 22-year marriage, with Thomas ordered to pay $300 per month in permanent periodic alimony…
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 Cohabitation cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
After a 22 year marriage, Thomas Pill and Wanda Pill were divorced in November, 1982. Thomas was ordered to pay $300 per month in permanent periodic alimony. In May, 1988, Thomas petitioned to terminate or reduce alimony on the ground that Wanda was now cohabiting with Guy and that this new living arrangement substantially contributed to her income.
Although not reflected on Wanda’s financial affidavit, the record indicates that in addition to taking care of the lawn and pool and making repairs to the home Guy also pays $150 per week to Wanda. The court found that this additional income, some 47% of her reported net income (not to mention the in-kind services performed by Guy), was insufficient to warrant modification. We reverse.
Wanda’s financial statement, even including a $100 per month contribution to her IRA, shows only a $200 per month deficit. If she included the income received from Guy, she would show a $400 per month surplus, a figure greater than her monthly alimony.1 While Thomas’s net weekly income has gone from $374 in 1982 to $588 in 1989 (an increase of 57%), Wanda’s has gone from $195 in 1982 to $319 (not counting Guy’s untaxed contribution of $150) in 1989 (an increase of 65%).
This matter is remanded for determination of the financial benefits derived from Wanda’s relationship with Guy including in-kind services as well as a determination of the benefits derived by Guy from the relationship which are paid at least partially by Thomas and an appropriate adjustment to the alimony obligation of Thomas.
REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Wanda contends that she did not report the income from Guy because it covered little more than their food expenses. Her financial statement, however, shows expenses of $350 and a portion of another $100 for "food” and "lunch”. It appears that at a minimum she admits to receiving this amount of benefit from her relationship with Guy. If, in fact, Guy only contributes to the food, it may well be that he is being supported, at best partially, by Thomas’s alimony payments. He benefits, for example, from Wanda’s mortgage payments, gas, telephone and electric payments, water/sewer payments, yard spray, and cable TV. The trial court must take these benefits to Guy into account. Schneider v. Schneider, 467 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buxton v. Buxton, 963 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…the court noted that because the former wife was paying the mortgage, gas bills, electric bills, telephone bills, and water and sewer bills without a financial contribution from her live-in companion, she was partially supporting him. Pill v. Pill, 559 So. 2d 364, 364 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Here, unlike in Long, Wasco’s “rent” covers significantly more than his share of the groceries and utilities. Further, like in Pill, Wasco is providing yard work at a reduced rate and assisting with household maintena…
-
Atkins v. Atkins, 611 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ause she had another ample source of support, the former wife failed to show the need for any additional amounts of permanent periodic alimony at the time of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1201; Pill v. Pill, 559 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA1990) (weekly income, lawn and pool care, and home repairs provided to former wife by her live-in boyfriend were sufficient to warrant downward modification of former husband’s alimony obligation). Among the circumstances considered by…
-
Pill v. Pill, 583 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…to a reduction of alimony because of the changed circumstances in the former wife’s needs and income caused by a rent-paying live-in boyfriend who also performs yard work and maintenance services having additional economic value. In Pill v. Pill, 559 So. 2d 364 (Fla.5th DCA 1990), we held that the former husband was entitled to a reduction of alimony and that the court should consider the benefits received by the wife — not only from the cash received but also the economic value of the services received by…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- W.L. Smith v. Dunning, 467 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)