RONALD D. HACKNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
SHERRI L. HACKNEY, 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.
Ronald Hackney appealed the denial of his petition to modify alimony and child support payments and a contempt adjudication for nonpayment. The appellate court reversed, finding adequate grounds for modification based on his job loss and changed circumstances regarding custody of the child.
The court reversed all orders, finding adequate grounds for modification exist. Hackney's involuntary job loss constituted a substantial change in circumstances, the child support obligation was subject to modification given the child's changed living situation and attainment of majority, and the attorney's fees award was unjustified and failed to comply with statutory requirements.
[1] A substantial change in financial circumstances, such as involuntary unemployment, may constitute adequate grounds for modification of alimony and child support obligatio…
[2] A child support obligation may be subject to modification when the child no longer resides with the custodial parent.
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“We reverse the orders appealed from in that the record demonstrates adequate grounds for modification.”
Establishes the central holding that changed circumstances warranted reversal of the denial of modification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court ordered Ronald Hackney to pay $750 per month child support and $1,000 per month permanent periodic alimony to his ex-wife, Sherri Hack…
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 Contempt For Failure To Pay Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
These are two timely consolidated appeals arising from the denial of appellant’s petition for modification of alimony and child support as well as from a final order adjudicating appellant in contempt for his failure to pay alimony and child support.
The final judgment of dissolution made an equitable distribution of the parties’ property and required the husband to pay $750 per month child support for the sixteen-year-old child of the parties whose custody was awarded to the wife. In addition, she was awarded $1,000 per month permanent periodic alimony, and each party was required to pay their respective attorney’s fees.
The husband sought modification of both the alimony and child support due to a substantial change in circumstances, i.e., he had lost his executive position with Pratt & Whitney and was currently unemployed, and the parties’ son was no longer living with the wife. The prayer for modification was denied; the trial court found the husband in contempt for delinquencies in support payments and awarded the wife attorney’s fees.
We reverse the orders appealed from in that the record demonstrates adequate grounds for modification. Although the wife contended that the husband quit his job, the record does not support that thesis. The husband was given the option of resigning or being fired. He chose the former to preclude being “blackballed” in the industry and subsequently appealed his dismissal through the company hierarchy without success. Since then he has been unable to obtain similar employment. With regard to-the child support the record shows the child, who has by now reached majority, was not living with the wife. He had lived with the husband for a time, had been in a drug rehabilitation program and had also lived alone. Finally, the award of attorney’s fees appears unjustified because the equitable distribution left the parties pretty much equal regarding their assets yet no fees were allowed at final dissolution. Now, the husband’s financial situation has worsened. Thus, no basis for the fee allowance is apparent. In addition, the Roe requirements were not complied with in determining the fee. Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
We therefore reverse the orders appealed from in all respects and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to further consider appellant’s petition for modification.
Reversed.
HERSEY, C.J., and WARNER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…e primary factor to be considered. Id. at 700. Where the parties are in financial parity, yet the trial court has awarded fees to one spouse, we have hot hesitated to reverse. See Wait v. Wait, 886 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Hackney v. Hackney, 560 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The parties' in this case are in financial parity, making the partial award to the former wife erroneous and reversible. We recognize that there are cases where, despite equalized assets, one spouse’s vastly superior income mak…
-
Fredrick Thomas v. Janell Thomas, 589 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ovided him with sufficient funds to pay the required child support. As none of this evidence was discredited, it would appear that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s petition for modification. See, e.g., Hackney v. Hackney, 560 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (husband’s loss of executive position and current unemployment constituted adequate grounds for modification); Haas v. Haas, 552 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (surgeon husband who lost operating privileges due to alcoholism, the…
-
Weimer v. Weimer, 677 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…fairness. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla.1980). Furthermore, equitable distribution is more permanent than so-called “permanent” alimony, which may be modified based upon a change in circumstances. See, e.g., Hackney v. Hackney, 560 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to distribute the marital assets equally. The Wife also argues that the trial court erred in awarding her only $1,600 a month in permanent periodic alimon…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)