CARMEN GALVAN UMSTEAD, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
THOMAS J. UMSTEAD, 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 this dissolution of marriage case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's distribution of marital assets and award of permanent alimony to the former wife, but reversed the provision for automatic increases in alimony when the parties' children reach majority, finding such predetermined automatic modifications lacking proper evidentiary support.
The court affirmed the equitable distribution of marital assets, the award of permanent alimony (rather than rehabilitative), and the amount of permanent alimony awarded. However, the court reversed the provision for automatic increases in permanent alimony upon the children reaching majority, finding no evidentiary basis for determining the wife's future need or the husband's future ability to pay.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony if there is no evidentiary basis to conclude otherwise.
[2] Equitable distribution of marital assets will be affirmed if no error is found.
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“Generally judgments providing for automatic changes in alimony and support payments upon the occurrence of future events have not found favor in Florida.”
Establishes the general disfavor in Florida law for automatic modifications to alimony based on future events.
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 awarded primary residency of the parties' two children to Carmen Galvan Umstead (wife) and ordered Thomas J. Umstead (husband) to pay …
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
PER CURIAM.
Both the former wife, Carmen Galvan Umstead, and the former husband, Thomas J. Umstead, challenge the trial court’s rulings in this dissolution of marriage action. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The wife’s appeal challenges the trial court’s distribution of the parties’ marital assets and the amount of permanent alimony awarded to her. The husband in his cross-appeal challenges the equitable distribution and the award of permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony. The husband also contests that portion of the final judgment which provides for automatic increases in permanent alimony as each of the parties’ two children reach their majority. Although we might have ruled differently if we were establishing the amount of permanent alimony, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the amount it did and, accordingly, affirm the award. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
We also find no error in the court’s equitable distribution of the parties’ marital assets or in the court’s awarding the wife permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony.
We agree, however, with the husband’s contention concerning an automatic increase in permanent periodic alimony. The trial court awarded primary residency of the parties’ two children to the wife and ordered the husband to pay $889 per month child support for each child. The second amended final judgment provided that as each of the children reached the age of majority, the amount of child support attributed to that child would be paid to the wife as. additional permanent periodic alimony. This was error. See Reid v. Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA1978).
Generally judgments providing for automatic changes in alimony and support payments upon the occurrence of future events have not found favor in Florida. Although there may be circumstances in which a predetermined automatic increase in alimony is proper, such an increase cannot be upheld in this ease. When prospective modifications have been upheld, they are carefully conditioned upon specifically articulated changes in circumstances which would virtually preclude the possibility of unfairness to either party. Kangas v. Rangas, 420 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA1982).
In this case, there is no evidentiary basis for the determination of the wife’s need or the husband’s ability to pay alimony at the time the future increases will become effective, and the court erred by ordering such increases. See Kinzler v. Kinzler, 497 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 5th DCA1986); Reid. There is an adequate procedure for modification when changes in the circumstances of the parties do occur. We, accordingly, remand to the trial court with instructions to strike all provisions relating to future automatic increases in alimony payments from its judgment.
We affirm in all other respects. Featherngill v. Featherngill, 478 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA1985).
Affirmed in part and remanded with instructions.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swanston v. Swanston, 746 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…amount of alimony upon termination of his child support obligation, without making specific factual findings of extenuating circumstances that would support the automatic increase in alimony after the child reaches majority. See Umstead v. Umstead, 620 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 552 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Spanogle v. Spanogle, 376 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Reid v. Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). With respect to the child support award, the husband contends…
-
Jimenez v. Nilda Jimenez, 211 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ony upon the child reaching the age of majority, without any findings as to “extenuating circumstances that would support the automatic increase in alimony,” is error. Id.; Reid v. Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Umstead v. Umstead, 620 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In the present case, the trial court stated that the husband’s alimony payments would increase automatically upon the child graduating from high school. The court made no additional findings to justify this increase. We th…
-
Davis v. Davis, 751 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…is. We find no error in the award of permanent alimony, but reverse the automatic future increases in that alimony based upon termination of child support obligations. See Swanston v. Swanston, 746 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Umstead v. Umstead, 620 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Spanogle v. Spanogle, 376 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Reid v. Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The better approach would be to consider the respective financial situations of the parties in the future as each child’…
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
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Reid v. Demetria Reid, 365 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Featherngill v. Featherngill, 478 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Fed. Ins. Co. v. Fatolitis, 478 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Kinzler v. Kinzler, 497 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)