SALLY J. CARR F/K/A SALLY C. SHAWFRANK, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD W. SHAWFRANK, 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.
A former wife appeals a trial court order reducing her ex-husband's alimony obligations based on claimed changes in circumstances. The appellate court agrees that a documented 19% income reduction justifies modification, but reverses and remands because the trial court improperly relied on other grounds that merely disagreed with prior appellate precedent.
The husband's documented 19% reduction in income constituted a substantial, material, permanent, and involuntary change in circumstances justifying modification. However, the other grounds the trial court relied upon were improper because they merely reflected disagreement with prior appellate and trial court decisions. The alimony award should be reduced by only 19%, not by the larger amount the trial court ordered.
[1] A reduction in income of 19% may constitute a substantial, material, permanent, and involuntary change in circumstances justifying modification of alimony.
[2] Disagreement with prior court decisions does not constitute a sufficient change of circumstances to justify modification of alimony.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court's finding — that the husband's 19% reduction in income constituted a substantial, material, permanent, and involuntary change in circumstances not contemplated at the final judgment of dissolution — was supported by competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes the standard for modification of alimony and confirms that the income reduction met the required legal standard.
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 were divorced and a final judgment of dissolution established alimony obligations for the husband to pay the former wife. The husband subs…
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 Need And Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, C.J.
The former wife appeals from an order granting the former husband’s supplemental petition for modification of final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The wife argues that reasons given by the trial judge did not constitute a sufficient change of circumstances justifying a reduction in alimony.
We agree in all respects except one.
The trial court’s finding — that the husband’s 19% reduction in income constituted a substantial, material, permanent, and involuntary change in circumstances not contemplated at the final judgment of dissolution — was supported by competent substantial evidence. The other grounds raised by the husband for modification of his alimony obligations constituted nothing more than disagreement with prior decisions of this court as well as the trial court.
The trial court, therefore, erred to the extent that it relied on these grounds as a basis for modification.
We reverse the trial court’s order of modification and remand with instructions that the trial court reduce the original alimony award by only 19%.1
Both parties have requested appellate attorney’s fees, and the former wife challenges the trial court’s denial of her request for attorney’s fees. We deny both parties’ requests based on need and ability to pay, but remand to the trial court to consider the wife’s request for fees at the trial and appellate level based on the authority of Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997) (holding that in determining entitlement to attorney’s fees the court may consider the duration and history of the litigation as well as whether its main purpose was to harass or frustrate).
WEBSTER and HAWKES, JJ., concur. . While we would normally remand to the trial court for reconsideration, we feel that our disposition is appropriate because of the history of this particular-case and the husband’s unwillingness to accept previous determinations of the court.
On appellee’s Motion for Clarification, and appellant’s Amended Motion for Rehearing or Alternatively Motion for Clarification
WOLF, C.J.
In light of this court’s prior decision that the original award of alimony should have been reduced by only 19%, we clarify our previous opinion and reverse that portion of the trial court’s order determining appellee’s retroactive credit for overpaid alimony. The case is, therefore, remanded to the trial court to readdress the retroactivity issue in accordance with the dictates of our opinion. In all other respects the motions for clarification and rehearing are denied.
WEBSTER and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edel v. Walker, 927 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…780 So. 2d 985, 987-88 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (observing that it is generally appropriate to award attorney’s fees to one party to compensate for fees occasioned by the other party’s misconduct in attempting to hide assets); see also Carr v. Shawfrank, 894 So. 2d 272, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIFFIN, MONACO and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . We note two minor errors in the final judgment that neither implicate the court’s recollection of the evidence nor otherwise raise concern as to the order…
-
Shawfrank v. Shawfrank, 97 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ing that the former husband’s alimony obligation be reduced by over 50%. That order was reversed by this court based on a determination that the record supported only a 19% reduction in the former husband’s alimony obligation. See Carr v. Shawfrank, 894 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Shawfrank II”). On remand, the trial court entered an order on September 26, 2005, reducing the former husband’s alimony obligation in accordance with the decision in Shawfrank II. Less than a year later, in August 2006,…
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)