PHILIP RADZIWON, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY RADZIWON, 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.
Philip Radziwon appeals a trial court's reduction of his permanent alimony obligation from $1,200 to $866 per month. The appellate court reversed, finding that the reduction still left the payor unable to meet his basic living expenses and constituted an abuse of discretion.
The trial court abused its discretion in modifying the alimony award because after paying $866 in alimony and $200 toward arrears, the payor would be left with only $709 monthly while requiring $1,168 for basic necessities, making it impossible for him to support himself.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in modifying alimony awards, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion when an alimony modification leaves the payor with insufficient funds to meet basic necessities.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to modify the terms of an alimony award and the court's ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to alimony modifications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment of dissolution incorporated a marital settlement agreement requiring Philip Radziwon to pay permanent periodic alimony of $1,200 per …
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 Alimony Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
Philip Radziwon appeals the trial court’s order granting a reduction in appellant’s permanent alimony obligation. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to either terminate his alimony payment or reduce it to between $150.00 and $200.00 a month. Appellant also contends that, based on the trial court’s comments at the end of the modification proceeding, the court prejudged his petition for modification.
The final judgment of dissolution incorporated a marital settlement agreement that provided for permanent periodic alimony of $1,200.00 a month, approximately forty-three percent of appellant’s income. After holding a hearing on appellant’s petition to modify or terminate alimony, the trial court reduced appellant’s alimony obligation to $866.00 a month and ordered payment of $200.00 a month toward appellant’s alimony arrearage of $24,667.50.
A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to modify the terms of an alimony award and the court’s ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla.1992); Stewart v. Rich, 664 So. 2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the appellant and appellee earned net monthly incomes of $1,775.00 and $1,262.85, respectively. We recognize that the limited income of the parties and appellee’s need for support made the determination of appellant’s petition for modification difficult. After paying the $866.00 a month in alimony and $200.00 a month in arrears to appellee, appellant is left with only $709.00 a month to support himself. Appellee will have $2,128.85 available for her needs.
Appellant’s monthly expenses for basic necessities such as food, housing, utilities and transportation amount to a minimum of $1,168.00 a month. Since it is apparent that appellant cannot support himself after paying $866.00 a month in alimony and $200.00 a month in arrears, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying the alimony award. See Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“where the husband’s income is nearly exhausted on obligations imposed by the final judgment, leaving him with practically no money to support himself, reasonable persons could not differ as to the impropriety of the actions taken by the trial court”).
Accordingly, we reverse this cause with instructions for the trial court to reconsider appellant’s petition for modification. We need not address the second point on appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GUNTHER, J., concurs.
STONE, C.J., dissents with opinion.
STONE, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm on the authority of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Angeline Alois v. Alois, 937 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ined with the child support award and health insurance for the minor child, left former husband without the means to support himself, such that no reasonable man could differ as to the impropriety of the court’s award. Id. In Radziwon v. Radziwon, 710 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the court ordered the payment of $866 a month in alimony and $200 a month in arrears, leaving former husband with only $709 a month to support himself. We stated: Appellant’s monthly expenses for basic necessities such as food,…
-
Marshall v. Marshall, 953 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), disapproved on other grounds by Acker. The cumulative effect of the equitable distribution plan renders the trial court’s judgment an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Radziwon v. Radziwon, 710 So. 2d 748, 748—49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that trial court abused its discretion where former husband was left with only $709 per month to support himself after paying alimony while former wife would have $2,128.85 available for her needs).4 [*28] The fi…
-
Ballesteros v. Ballesteros, 819 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…402 (former husband could not be charged with permanent periodic alimony, child support, and mortgage payments totaling $2549, where his net income, according to child support guidelines worksheet adopted by court, was $2760); Radziwon v. Radziwon, 710 So. 2d 748, 748-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(the trial, court abused its discretion in setting former husband’s alimony obligation at $866 per month, with an additional payment of $200 per month toward the alimony arrearage; former husband’s net monthly income was $…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1992)
- Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Stewart v. Rich, 664 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)