JESUS MONESTERIO, APPELLANT,
v.
HONORA MONESTERIO, 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 held that the trial court erred in denying the husband's petition for modification of alimony because there was no competent substantial evidence to support the finding that the reduction in his income was temporary.
The husband, an airline pilot, was ordered to pay permanent periodic alimony. His income was reduced due to industry downturns, and he petitioned for …
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 Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court denied the husband’s petition for modification of alimony on the ground that the reduction in his income was not permanent. Because this finding was not supported by competent substantial evidence, we reverse.
The final judgment of dissolution, by agreement, required the husband, an American Airlines pilot earning $203,800, to pay the wife $5,000 a month permanent periodic alimony. Fourteen months later, in July 2002, the husband’s pay was reduced to $180,000 as a result of the downturn in the travel industry, and he petitioned for modification. Before the case was heard, his salary was further reduced to $161,000.
At the hearing the husband testified that his present salary of $161,000 was sched uled for an increase of six percent in May 2004, according to the union contract. He also testified that he could possibly receive increases of one percent per year in the future depending on how the airline was doing.
The trial court denied modification finding that there was no proof that the reduction in income was permanent. Viewed in a light most favorable to the wife, the husband’s income was reduced from $203,000 to $161,000, with an expected six percent increase which would bring it to $171,000. Even if we assume he will receive the possible one percent a year raises, there is no competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the husband suffered only a temporary reduction. Reversed.
SHAHOOD, J„ and EMAS, KEVIN M„ Associate Judge, concur. .