SANDRA SELEMBO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN ANDREW SELEMBO, 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.
Sandra Selembo appeals a post-judgment modification terminating her permanent periodic alimony based on a substantial inheritance she received. The court affirms the modification but remands for proceedings to determine whether the wife should receive a setoff for attorney's fees she paid on the husband's court-ordered obligation.
The court holds that the inheritance, combined with the reduction in the husband's income, constitutes an unanticipated substantial change in circumstances justifying termination of alimony. The court also holds that the trial court erred in denying the wife's request for a setoff against the $33,000 owed for amounts of court-ordered fees and costs the wife actually paid.
[1] An inheritance received by a former spouse can constitute an unanticipated substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of alimony, even if the expectancy…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in modifying an alimony award when the modification is based upon substantial competent evidence.
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“the actual inheritance, combined with a reduction in the husband's income, constituted an unanticipated substantial change in circumstances which justified a termination of the alimony award”
Establishes the court's holding that the inheritance qualifies as a substantial change in circumstances under alimony modification law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring the original divorce proceedings, the wife had joint accounts with her mother that were known to all parties and the court. Upon her mother's d…
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The former wife, Sandra Selembo, appeals from a post-judgment order which modifies the final judgment of dissolution of marriage to terminate her award of permanent periodic alimony. We affirm the modification order, but we remand the case for further evidentiary proceedings on the issue of a setoff for amounts the wife paid for the husband’s court-ordered obligation to pay attorney’s fees and costs.
The wife contends that the substantial inheritance she received upon her mother’s death, which is the basis for the modification, does not constitute an unanticipated substantial change of circumstances. These funds were held in joint accounts with her mother at the time of the dissolution proceedings and were known to all parties and the court. The wife’s position is that the court took this future expectancy into consideration at the time of the alimony award and, therefore, her becoming sole owner of the accounts upon her mother’s death does not constitute a change of circumstances.
During the original divorce proceedings, however, the wife asserted that she was a cotenant of these funds solely for inheritance purposes and that the funds were the sole property of her mother during her lifetime. The trial judge in this proceeding determined such to be the case and that the actual inheritance, combined with a reduction in the husband’s income, constituted an unanticipated substantial change in circumstances which justified a termination of the alimony award. We agree that such determination is based upon substantial competent evidence and does not constitute an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. See Bedell v. Bedell, 523 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Friedman v. Friedman, 366 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
On December 27, 1990, the trial court entered its modification order, retroactive to the date of filing of the husband’s petition for modification. This retroactive application resulted in an overpayment of alimony to the wife in the amount of $33,-000. The court ordered this sum to be repaid to the husband. By an order rendered December 21, 1987, the trial court had ordered the husband to pay a portion of the fees and costs incurred by the wife in the original proceedings. These amounts remain unpaid. By reason of the husband’s present financial circumstances, payment in the future is uncertain at best. At the same time, the wife is contractually obligated to pay these amounts if the husband does not. The wife sought a setoff against the $33,000 for the amounts the husband is obligated to pay on her behalf. The trial court denied this request. Under the circumstances presented, such denial was error. We affirm the order of modification. We remand, however, for further evidentiary proceedings at which the trial court is to determine the amounts of contractually-owed fees and costs the wife has actually paid by the time of such hearing. The wife is then to receive a setoff of these amounts actually paid against the $33,000 owed to the husband, such setoff not to exceed the remaining balance of the $19,043.07, which the trial court ordered the husband to pay in its order of December 21, 1987.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brock v. Newman Brock, 690 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ife to deplete capital assets to maintain marital standard of living); Kaufman v. Kaufman, 541 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (error to require former wife to deplete capital assets for support before seeking modification). . See Selembo v. Selembo, 591 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bedell v. Bedell, 523 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). . See Stewart v. Rich, 664 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Kanouse v. Kanouse, 549 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). . Green v. Green, 542 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); §…
-
Wiesenfeld v. Wiesenfeld, 95 So. 3d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…record supports the trial court’s findings that the former wife remains able to perform the duties of a paralegal, and that her receiving a substantial inheritance from her parent will [*961] allow her to become self-supporting. Selembo v. Selembo, 591 So. 2d 1112, 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that former wife’s receiving a large inheritance was a substantial change in circumstances justifying termination of her permanent periodic alimony); Bedell v. Bedell, 523 So. 2d 166 167-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (c…
-
Morris v. Morris, 62 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…the facts of this case the trial court should have set the fee and cost award off against the $98,800 that the former wife owed him based upon his overpayment of alimony. [*1216] See Novack v. Novack, 210 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1968); Selembo v. Selembo, 591 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In all other respects, we affirm. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court with directions to set off the fee and cost award entered in favor of the former wife against the final judgment entered in favor of the form…
Authorities Cited
- Friedman v. Friedman, 366 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Bedell v. Bettie Moor Bedell, 523 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)