CHERYL A. HOFFMEYER, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID W. HOFFMEYER, 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.
In this alimony modification appeal, the trial court reduced Cheryl Hoffmeyer's monthly alimony from $1,700 to $500 after her ex-husband, David Hoffmeyer, petitioned to modify the award. The appellate court affirmed the reduction, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in balancing both parties' financial needs while maintaining incentive for the ex-husband's reemployment.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing alimony to $500 monthly. The reduction appropriately balances both parties' basic financial needs while maintaining incentive for Mr. Hoffmeyer to seek reemployment, and does not preclude future upward modification if Mr. Hoffmeyer's income substantially increases or Ms. Hoffmeyer's expenses permanently increase due to her illness.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by modifying an alimony award when there are unanticipated changes in the financial circumstances of either party.
[2] A trial court may reduce an alimony award when the payor's financial circumstances have substantially changed, such as through early retirement due to obsolescence of ski…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in this case. The trial court's ruling to reduce Ms. Hoffmeyer's alimony from $1700 to $500 provides an appropriate balance by meeting both parties' basic financial needs while maintaining an incentive for Mr. Hoffmeyer to seek other employment.”
The court's primary holding explaining why the reduction was a reasonable exercise of discretion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Hoffmeyers divorced in 1994 after 25+ years of marriage. At divorce, Ms. Hoffmeyer received $1,700 monthly alimony and was suffering from an undia…
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 Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Cheryl A. Hoffmeyer r appeals the trial court’s order granting her former husband’s petition to modify alimony. The trial court decreased Ms. Hoffmeyer’s monthly alimony award from $1700 to $500. With some hesitation, we affirm this order. The Hoffmeyers were divorced in 1994 after more than twenty-five years of marriage. At the time of the dissolution, Mr. Hoffmeyer was employed by IBM, and Ms. Hoffmeyer was suffering from an illness that had not been fully diagnosed. The couple’s assets were fairly divided between the parties, and Ms. Hoffmeyer received $1700 per month in alimony.
Shortly after the divorce, Ms. Hoffmeyer was diagnosed with Lyme disease. She has now been declared permanently disabled for purposes of social security and is receiving social security benefits.. Meanwhile, Mr. Hoffmeyer took early retirement from IBM, at least in part because technology has rendered his computer expertise outdated. Each party is now receiving a retirement benefit from IBM. At the time of the hearing on the petition to modify, Mr. Hoffmeyer was not yet reemployed, but the trial court assumed that he could find new employment.
At the hearing on the petition to modify, the court did not accept Ms. Hoffmeyer’s argument that she would have long-term increased medical expenses that would not be covered by insurance or her disability protection. The quality of Ms. Hoffmey er’s evidence on this issue was very poor, and the trial court questioned her credibility. The trial court, however, recognized that Mr. Hoffmeyer needs to obtain employment at some level in a different field and, therefore, refused to terminate alimony in its entirety.
We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in this case. The trial court’s ruling to reduce Ms. Hoffmeyer’s alimony from $1700 to $500 provides an appropriate balance by meeting both parties’ basic financial needs while maintaining an incentive for Mr. Hoffmeyer to seek other employment. Therefore, if Mr. Hoffmeyer’s regular income is substantially increased by virtue of new employment, or Ms. Hoffmeyer’s expenses permanently increase as a result of her illness, such circumstances should be treated as unanticipated changes based on the record in this case. Under those circumstances, our ruling does not preclude an upward modification of alimony in the future.
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hedstrom v. Hedstrom, 123 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…obligations during the period of unemployment. See Bennett v. Dep’t of Revenue, 664 So. 2d 33, 34-35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Alternatively, rather than suspending the payment obligations entirely, the court can reduce them. See Hoffmeyer v. Hoffmeyer, 802 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“The trial court’s ruling to reduce [the] alimony from $1700 to $500 provides an appropriate balance by meeting both parties’ basic financial needs while maintaining an incentive for [the payor] to seek other employment.”).…