KENNETH A. PETERMANN, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANNE PETERMANN, 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 affirmed the trial court's decision to increase alimony payments but remanded the case for correction of a clerical error and to strike an unnecessary provision regarding retirement planning.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the alimony. However, it found that the final judgment contained a clerical error and an unnecessary provision that should be corrected.
[1] An upward modification of permanent periodic alimony is not an abuse of discretion when supported by the record.
[2] A court may correct clerical errors in a final judgment to accurately reflect the record.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The Respondent’s Financial Affidavit filed on the 11th day of September, 1985 showed that he had a gross income of $540.00 per week and a net income of $361.95 per week with nominal capital assets at the time of the dissolution of marriage.”
Establishes the correction of a clerical error regarding the husband's income figures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed the trial court's order granting the wife's request for an upward modification of permanent periodic alimony. The trial court's f…
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.
DAVIS, Judge.
The husband, Kenneth A. Peter-mann, challenges the trial court’s order granting the motion of the wife, Jeanne Petermann, requesting an upward modification of permanent periodic alimony. Following a thorough review, we conclude that the trial court’s upward modification of permanent periodic alimony was not an abuse of discretion, and we affirm.
However, we must remand for correction of two matters.
First, in the final judgment of modification, the trial court made the following clerical error in paragraph six: “The Respondent’s Financial Affidavit filed on the 11th day of September, 1985 showed that he had a gross income of $540.00 per month and a net income of $361.95 per month with nominal capital assets at the time of the dissolution of marriage.” The record reveals that these were weekly, not monthly figures. We believe this to be a clerical error as the trial court’s ruling is adequately supported by a finding of a weekly income of this amount.
Accordingly, paragraph six should be amended to read as follows: “The Respondent’s Financial Affidavit filed on the 11th day of September, 1985 showed that he had a gross income of $540.00 per week and a net income of $361.95 per week with nominal capital assets at the time of the dissolution of marriage.” Second, we also direct the trial court on remand to strike the provision contained in the final judgment that directs the husband to “account for these alimony payments when planning his retirement.” Alimony obligations do not terminate on voluntary retirement. See Greene v. Greene, 547 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
However, such a provision as contained in this final judgment is unnecessary and unenforceable as the provision is vague and only orders the husband to follow the law.
The trial court may have intended this provision to be informational only; however, this provision creates an ambiguity as to whether some additional responsibility is being placed on the husband.
Accordingly, it should be removed from the order for the sake of clarity.
Affirmed and remanded for correction.
GREEN and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.