WILLIAM E. SPOONER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARILYN M. SPOONER, 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.
William Spooner appealed the trial court's denial of his supplemental petition to modify alimony. The appellate court reversed, holding that while claims based on fraud or misrepresentation must be brought within one year, a request for modification based on a substantial change in circumstances is not subject to such a time restriction and must be heard on the merits.
The court held that a request for modification of alimony based on a substantial change in circumstances is not subject to the one-year time limitation under rules 1.540 and 12.540. Rather, section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes, permits such modifications without time restriction when parties have entered into an agreement for alimony payments.
[1] A post-judgment petition to set aside a final judgment on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party must be brought not more than one y…
[2] The one-year time limitation for seeking relief from a judgment based on fraud under Rule 1.540(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is calculated from the date the judg…
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“to justify a modification of alimony, the moving party must show: (1) a substantial change in circumstances; (2) that the change was not contemplated at the final judgment of dissolution; and (3) that the change is sufficient, material, permanent, and involuntary.”
The legal standard for modifying alimony based on changed circumstances, cited from Rahn v. Rahn.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties executed a marital settlement agreement dated December 20, 1999, which was incorporated into their final judgment of dissolution of marria…
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 Omission cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, EDWARD F„ Senior Judge.
William Spooner, pro se (the former husband), appeals an order denying his supplemental petition for modification of alimony. We reverse and remand for a new hearing to give the former husband an opportunity to prove a substantial change of circumstances.
The parties entered into a marital settlement agreement dated December 20, 1999, which was incorporated into the parties’ final judgment of dissolution of marriage dated March 16, 2000. The former husband filed a supplemental petition for modification of alimony on August 20, 2001.
Following a hearing, the trial court found that the petition sought relief based on “fraud, misrepresentation, admissions, and omissions” and was not filed within one year of the final judgment as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540. The court denied the petition as untimely. To the extent that the petition can be construed to seek relief based on fraud or misrepresentation, we agree that the supplemental petition is untimely.1
The petition, however, also clearly seeks a downward modification of the former husband’s alimony obligation based on a change of circumstances. This request does not fall within the ambit of rules 1.540 and 12.540. Rather, section 61.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), which does not contain a time restriction, provides that a party may seek modification of alimony based on a change of circumstances when the parties enter into an agreement or when the court orders payments for alimony. In Rahn v. Rahn, 768 So. 2d 1102, 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), this court stated that “to justify a modification of alimony, the moving party must show: (1) a substantial change in circumstances; (2) that the change was not contemplated at the final judgment of dissolution; and (3) that the change is sufficient, material, permanent, and involuntary.”
Here, the trial court denied the former husband’s petition as untimely without affording the former husband an opportunity to prove the foregoing elements. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the supplemental petition for a modification of alimony. On remand, the trial court shall conduct a hearing in which the former husband has an opportunity to present testimony and evidence to support his claim regarding a substantial change of circumstances that would warrant modification of alimony.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. . Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540 provides that there is no time limit if the motion is based on fraudulent financial affidavits in marital cases. Here, however, the former husband has not raised the issue of fraudulent financial affidavits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. M.J.M. and A.M.R., 217 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…urther evidence where Department of Children and Family Services had not been provided an opportunity to present additional evidence after the trial court correctly determined that clear and convincing evidence standard applied); Spooner v. Spooner, 838 So. 2d 1202, 1203 .(Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (remanding for evidentiary hearing where former husband had not been afforded an opportunity to show a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of alimony obligation). III. Although we reject DOR’s ar…
Authorities Cited
- Rahn v. Rahn, 768 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)