PATRICK B. OSTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
LORETTA J. OSTMAN, 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.
Patrick Ostman appeals from a postdissolution modification order that increased his former wife's permanent periodic alimony. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by approving the general master's recommendations because they were not supported by competent, substantial evidence of a material, substantial, involuntary, and permanent change in the former wife's circumstances.
The trial court abused its discretion in approving the general master's recommendations concerning modification of permanent periodic alimony because the conclusion that there was a material, substantial, involuntary, and permanent change in the former wife's circumstances was not supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] A general master's conclusion that there was a material, substantial, involuntary, and permanent change in circumstances must be supported by competent, substantial evide…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by approving a general master's recommendations for alimony modification when those recommendations are not supported by competent, su…
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“The general master's conclusion that there was a material, substantial, involuntary, and permanent change in the Former Wife's circumstances was not supported by competent, substantial evidence and thus did not provide a basis for an upward modification of the original permanent periodic alimony award.”
The court's primary holding establishing that the trial court lacked sufficient evidentiary support for the alimony modification.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick and Loretta Ostman were in a dissolution proceeding. The trial court considered a general master's recommendations regarding modification of p…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Patrick B. Ostman, the Former Husband, appeals from a postdissolution modification order that approved and confirmed a general master’s recommendations with respect to the modification of alimony previously awarded to Loretta J. Ostman, the Former Wife.1 The general master’s conclusion that there was a material, substantial, involuntary, and permanent change in the Former Wife’s circumstances was not supported by competent, substantial evidence and thus did not provide a basis for an upward modification of the original permanent periodic alimony award. Hence, the trial court abused its discretion in approving the general master’s recommendations concerning the modification of the permanent periodic alimony award. Furthermore, the decision concerning the modification of the permanent periodic alimony award cannot be affirmed on an alternative basis. Accordingly, we reverse the modification order to the extent that it retroactively and prospectively increased permanent periodic alimony and established an alimony arrearage.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., Concurs.
FULMER J., Concurs specially.
. In her petition for modification, the Former Wife also sought a modification of child support. The initial order entered by the trial court approved and confirmed the recommendations of the general master in all respects except for child support. Matters pertaining to child support were ultimately resolved by a joint stipulation of the parties that was ratified by court order. Finally, the Former Wife has not filed a cross-appeal from the termination of rehabilitative alimony. The only issues before this court relate to the modification of the permanent periodic alimony award.
FULMER, Judge,
Specially concurring.
The General Master’s report and recommendation contains findings of fact that are recited as a factual basis for the conclusion that “[t]here has been a material, substantial, involuntary and permanent change in Former Wife’s circumstances as a result of her medical conditions, her inability to complete a college degree and her inability to work on a regular basis.” In his brief, the Former Husband reviews the testimony and evidence presented and explains why the factual findings are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Having reviewed the record, I agree with the Former Husband’s arguments. Although the Former Wife established that she had various medical conditions, several of which predated the dissolution, the record is devoid of evidence that these conditions made it impossible for her to complete her education or prevented her from working on a regular basis. Therefore, I agree that the trial court’s order approving the report and recommendation of the General Master should be reversed.