ALAN HERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARILYN HERMAN, 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.
The appellate court dismissed as moot the former husband's appeal of an alimony modification order because the one-year abatement period had already expired, leaving no live controversy for the court to resolve.
An appeal of an alimony abatement order is moot when the abatement period has already expired and the decision will not directly affect the parties' current interests.
[1] An appeal challenging an alimony abatement order becomes moot when the abatement period expires before appellate review, and the appellate court may dismiss without preju…
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 intelligenceAlan Herman sought modification of his alimony obligations based on advanced age, ill health, and reduced income from part-time work. The trial court …
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 Petition For Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former husband, Alan Herman, appeals from an order entered on his post-judgment petition for modification of alimony.
In his petition, Mr. Herman sought a reduction of his alimony obligations based on an alleged permanent change of circumstances: that due to his advanced age, ill health, and outdated job skills, he was working only part-time and thus suffered a significant reduction in his income. After considering the parties’ testimony and other evidence, the trial court determined that the husband is “currently experiencing genuine health problems” and his income is such that “he cannot at this time reasonably meet his alimony obligations each month.” Instead of granting the petition for modification of the alimony, however, the trial court abated the former husband’s obligation for a period of one year, during which time any arrearage would accrue but not be subject to enforcement by contempt proceedings. The order further provides that “[ajfter the one-year period of abatement, ... either party may seek such relief as they deem appropriate, including a modification of the agreement as to alimony.”
Because the abatement period has already expired and a decision regarding the propriety of the lower court’s order will not, at this juncture, directly affect the parties’ interest, we find the matter to be moot. See Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1992); Lund v. Department of Health, 708 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek further relief in the trial court as provided for in the order appealed from.
Appeal dismissed as moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
Sardinas v. Claridania Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…, 1143-1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (denying certiorari review of order precluding testimony of insurance coverage). “The first two factors are jurisdictional, and an assessment of jurisdiction must be made prior to reaching the third.” Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694, 698 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see also Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla.1998) (“[I]t is settled law that, as a condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioning party must establish that…
-
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 975 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…jury, (2) that cannot be corrected by plenary appeal, before deciding whether petitioner has shown departure from essential requirements of law); accord Bared [*1177] & Co., Inc. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). In support of certiorari review, Commonwealth argues that the discovery ordered is overly broad and unduly burdensome causing irreparable harm and that the relevance of the requested documents to the class certification issue i…
-
Anderson v. Vander Meiden, 56 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…is not remediable on appeal because there is no practical way to determine after judgment how the requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 136, 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694, 698 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Criswell v. Best W. Int’l, Inc., 636 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Giacalone, 8 So. 3d at 1234-35 (footnote omitted). Based on the specific facts of this case, we believe that Anderson has established irreparable ha…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sallas v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Lund v. Dep't OF Health, 708 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)