HOWARD
v.
HOWARD
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.
A Florida circuit court modified a 1938 divorce decree to increase the defendant's monthly alimony obligation from $40 to $150, finding the defendant had the ability to pay and the plaintiff had documented need for additional support.
The court held that the defendant had the ability to reasonably meet the plaintiff's needs for additional alimony and modified the final decree to increase monthly alimony from $40 to $150, effective August 1, 1960, with the plaintiff expected to contribute $55 from her own income sources.
“It appearing that this court erred... by the entry of its order of May 5, 1959, in which the plaintiff's petition for modification of final decree was denied, and that said petition should be reconsidered in the light of the views expressed by the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, First District”
The court acknowledged its error and commitment to reconsider the modification petition based on appellate guidance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sought modification of a final divorce decree originally entered in 1938 that provided $40 monthly alimony. The court found the plaintif…
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 Petition For Modification Of Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
It appearing that this court erred (see Howard v. Howard, 118 So. 2d 90, certiorari denied by Supreme Court, June 28, 1960, original order of trial court, 14 Fla. Supp. 128) by the entry of its order of May 5, 1959, in which the plaintiff’s petition for modification of final decree was denied, and that said petition should be reconsidered in the light of the views expressed by the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, First District, and the testimony and evidence heretofore taken by the court; now therefore, pursuant to the mandate of said court, this court finds that the defendant has the ability to reasonably meet the plaintiff’s needs for additional alimony; that the plaintiff’s reasonable monthly needs are as follows: housing, lights, water, telephone, fuel oil for heat and cooking gas, $35; food and household supplies $50; clothing and miscellaneous needs $15; medical services and medication $40; practical nurse and/or maid service $50; taxes $15 — making a total of $205.
This court further finds that the plaintiff has a small monthly income from a mortgage contract for deed, and is eligible for social security benefits and should make application therefor, and that in fairness and justice these assets should be used by plaintiff to supply at least $55 of her needs as outlined above.
Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that beginning on August 1, 1960 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter, until further order of this court, the defendant shall pay directly to the plaintiff the sum of $150 as alimony, and that certain final decree entered herein, dated December 12, 1938, should be and the same is modified to the extent that the $40 monthly alimony payments therein provided shall be increased to the sum of $150 per month, effective August 1, 1960.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. Howard, 16 Fla. Supp. 206 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)
Authorities Cited
- Howard v. Howard, 118 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Howard v. Howard, 14 Fla. Supp. 128 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1959)