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.
Former husband entitled to substantial alimony reduction where former wife's financial needs are met by live-in boyfriend's $600 monthly cash support plus services valued at $131.66 monthly; alimony reduced to $1.00 per year.
When a former wife's financial needs are met by a live-in boyfriend's cash support and services, alimony should be reduced to a nominal sum of $1.00 per year.
[1] When determining alimony reduction based on a former spouse's changed financial circumstances due to a live-in partner's support, the court must consider both cash contri…
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 intelligence“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 her — in determining the amount of reduction”
Court's prior holding in Pill v. Pill regarding what factors to consider in determining alimony reduction
Former husband sought reduction of alimony based on changed circumstances caused by former wife's live-in boyfriend who provided $600 monthly cash sup…
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
HARRIS, Judge.
This is the second appeal from the same issue raised by the former husband: whether (and to what extent) he is entitled 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 her — in determining the amount of reduction.
On remand, the court determined that the economic value of the yard work, pool cleaning, house and pool maintenance and automobile maintenance performed by the friend amounts to $131.66 per month and reduced the alimony by that amount. The court failed to consider, however, the $600 per month cash received by the wife. When this amount is taken into account, the wife’s income exceeds her demonstrated needs. Alimony should have been reduced to a nominal sum for so long as the former wife’s financial needs are otherwise met.
REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an order reducing alimony to $1.00 a year. COWART and GRIFFIN, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buxton v. Buxton, 963 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…utions to the household barely covered his groceries and his share of the utilities. Moreover, there was no evidence that the former wife’s expenses had been [*955] reduced by her companion’s work around the house. Id. In contrast, in Pill v. Pill, 583 So. 2d 1114, 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the court affirmed a reduction in alimony based on the trial court’s finding that the former wife’s live-in companion was partially supporting her by providing yard work, pool cleaning, house and pool maintenance, and auto…
-
Ciaramello v. D'Ambra, 613 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…enable. Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501, 506 (Fla.1982). It follows that it is necessary that the court make that determination as to “the entire action, not merely a portion thereof.” Barber v. Oakhills Estates Partnership, 583 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Wood v. Price, 546 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1989). In contrast, section 772.11 provides a civil remedy for theft. It entitles a defendant to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court cos…
-
Atkins v. Atkins, 611 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…expenses, some of which the former husband was paying, the evidence of Appellant’s comfortable financial condition effectively disposed of any present claim of additional needs. Lanier v. Lanier, 594 So. 2d 809, 811 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); Pill v. Pill, 583 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA1991). The facts in the case at bar are distinguishable from those in Sinclair, 594 So. 2d at 807, 809, where the former husband had the ability to pay and the award of permanent periodic alimony was insufficient to meet the former wife…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pill v. Pill, 559 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)