HUBBARD
v.
HUBBARD
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.
In this Florida circuit court case, a husband sought modification of a final judgment requiring alimony payments, claiming his income had decreased due to a voluntary career change. The court denied the modification petition but signaled openness to future requests as the wife rehabilitates herself, applying rehabilitative alimony principles from the new no-fault divorce law retroactively.
The court denied the husband's petition for modification, finding that the income decrease resulted from a voluntary career change that was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the final judgment, and that his present income remains sufficient to meet family obligations. However, the court indicated that future modification petitions will be entertained and decided based on the wife's opportunity for rehabilitation and other relevant factors under the rehabilitative alimony principles.
[1] A voluntary career change that causes a decrease in income, which could have been reasonably anticipated, does not automatically warrant a modification of alimony obligat…
[2] Alimony may be rehabilitative in nature, even if the parties' agreement and final judgment were entered prior to the enactment of "no-fault" divorce laws.
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“although the husband's gross income has decreased between the time when the parties were living together and the present, nevertheless such decrease was caused by the voluntary change in the husband's career and such decrease could have been reasonably anticipated by the husband at the time of the entry of the final judgment”
Establishes that voluntary, foreseeable income decreases do not justify modification of alimony obligations.
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 and wife had entered into a written agreement and final judgment while living together. By the time of this modification petition, the hus…
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 No-Fault Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause having been heard on defendant’s petition for modification of final judgment and the court having considered the testimony of the parties adduced in open court and the argument of counsel and being advised in the premises, the court finds that although the husband’s gross income has decreased between the time when the parties were living together and the present, nevertheless such decrease was caused by the voluntary change in the husband’s career and such decrease could have been reasonably anticipated by the husband at the time of the entry of the final judgment; in addition present income of the husband is still sufficient to meet the obligations to his family embraced in the final judgment.
*117The court further finds that the wife is in satisfactory health and is qualified as a registered nurse so that she has the obligation to secure employment within the reasonably near future which employment is consistent with the requirements of the children for their care and maintenance.
It is further found that even though the written agreement of the parties was made and the final judgment entered prior to the enactment of the “No Fault” divorce law nevertheless the theories of the new law are applicable so that alimony shall be adjustable so as to be rehabilitative in nature rather than constituting a lifetime pénsion.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defendant husband’s petition for modification of final judgment is denied, but subsequent petitions to reduce or terminate alimony will be entertained by the court and will be disposed of as may be appropriate considering the wife’s opportunity to rehabilitate herself and considering all other matters appropriate to the law.
It is further ordered that the defendant husband shall pay to the firm of Church & Reed the sum of $150 toward the wife’s attorney’s fees for the defense of this action.