RONALD T. MULHOLLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
SARAH T. MULHOLLAND, 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 court affirmed the denial of the former husband's supplemental petition to modify alimony, finding competent substantial evidence supported the circuit court's decision to reject his request for decreased alimony obligations despite his claimed reduced income from early retirement and subsequent truck driving employment.
A former husband's petition to modify alimony obligations is properly denied when competent substantial evidence supports the circuit court's determination.
A former husband, forced into early retirement at age 57 from his position as a senior computer systems engineer with GTE, filed two petitions to modi…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
The former husband appeals the denial of his supplemental petition to modify a 1993 final judgment of dissolution to de crease his alimony obligation to his wife of almost twenty-nine years. This was his second petition since 1997 when the then 57 year old former husband was forced into early retirement from his position as a senior computer systems engineer with GTE. A general master held an evidentiary hearing in July 1997; then the circuit court held a hearing on the former husband’s exceptions to the report and recommendation of the general master. In December 1998, the circuit court ratified and adopted the general master’s report and recommendation in toto and denied any modification of alimony. No appeal was taken at that time. The former husband then filed another petition approximately four months later in March 1999. The only difference in the two petitions was an allegation that since January 1999 he was now employed as a truck driver earning approximately six dollars an hour. The circuit court held a hearing on this 1999 petition and again denied his request for a decrease in alimony, although it did lower the amount of insurance necessary to secure the alimony obligation, as the former husband had also requested.
We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of the October 1999 evidentiary hearing, and find that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the circuit court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
BLUE, C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.