STERLING M. OLDS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MARY P. OLDS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In a family law appeal concerning alimony modification, the court held that when appellate review determines an initial alimony award is excessive or inadequate, equitable principles require retroactive adjustment to the correctly determined amount. The court reversed the trial court's refusal to make the reduction retroactive and remanded for calculation of credits owed to the ex-husband.
When appellate review determines an initial alimony award is excessive or inadequate, equitable considerations compel a retroactive adjustment conforming to the appellate court's redetermination of the appropriate amount. The matter was remanded for calculation of credits owed to the ex-husband for overpayments during the period from initial determination to when he began paying the reduced amount.
[1] Equitable considerations compel a retroactive adjustment of alimony when an appellate court determines the initial award was inadequate or excessive.
[2] Alimony payments should be adjusted retroactively to conform to a trial court's redetermination of the appropriate amount upon remand.
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“When, upon appellate review, it is determined that the trial court's initial assessment of alimony is either inadequate or excessive, equitable considerations compel a retroactive adjustment conforming to the trial court's redetermination of the appropriate amount.”
Establishes the core holding that retroactive adjustment of alimony is required on equitable grounds when appellate review finds the original award wrong.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSterling M. Olds and his former wife Mary P. Olds had a dispute over permanent periodic alimony. The trial court initially awarded the husband $400 pe…
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 Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
In an earlier consideration of the conflict between Sterling M. Olds and his former wife, Mary P. Olds, we reversed the trial court’s award of permanent periodic alimony, $400 per week, because it was evident that the trial court based that amount upon an anticipation that the husband’s income would increase. Olds v. Olds, 555 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Upon remand, the trial court reduced the $400 weekly payments to $200 per week but refused to make the obligation retroactive to the date of the initial award. The ex-husband now asserts that had the trial court concurred in his retroactivity contention, his past payments in excess of the revised obligation would have been credited to his future payments. The ex-husband has appealed the trial court’s post-remand judgment and the ex-wife has cross-appealed the $200. We reverse on the appeal and affirm on the cross-appeal.
When, upon appellate review, it is determined that the trial court’s initial assessment of alimony is either inadequate or excessive, equitable considerations compel a retroactive adjustment conforming to the trial court’s redetermination of the appropriate amount. This result is compatible with authority stemming from disputes associated with the award of money in matri monial matters. Williams v. Williams, 553 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (child support to be increased from the date of the final hearing upon remand); Fields v. Fields, 533 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (temporary alimony may be credited if in excess of amount found upon date of remand to be appropriate); Perdue v. Perdue, 506 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (increased alimony payments retroactive to the date of filing petition for modification); Fotorny v. Fotorny, 397 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (child support payments retroactive to date of commencement of such payments).
Based upon the foregoing, this matter is remanded for a determination of the amount to be credited the ex-husband in the period from the initial determination of the ex-wife’s entitlement to permanent periodic alimony to the moment when the ex-husband began payment of the reduced amount.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farley v. Farley, 858 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…sband to pay based on the trial court’s findings as to the Former Husband’s income. The adjustment in alimony should be applied retroactively, as of October 12, 2000, the date of the initial determination of entitlement to alimony. See Olds v. Olds, 584 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In all other [*1173] respects, the amended final judgment of dissolution is affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.…
-
DeLORENZO v. DeLORENZO, 736 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ourt is justified in increasing alimony award when abuse of discretion has been shown). The amended final judgment shall also order that an additional $50 per month shall be applied to the arrearage created by this increased award. See Olds v. Olds, 584 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that retroactive adjustment is necessary when appellate review determines that initial assessment of alimony is either inadequate or excessive). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. CASANU…
Authorities Cited
- Perdue v. J.T. Perdue, 506 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Fotorny v. Fotorny, 397 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Fields v. Fields, 533 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Sterling M. Olds v. Olds, 555 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Lucinda Eudy Williams (Clayton) v. Williams, 553 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)