ERIC A. ELLISEN, APPELLANT,
v.
JANE L. ELLISEN, 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.
Eric Ellisen appeals the trial court's denial of his petition to modify or terminate alimony. The appellate court reverses, finding the trial court erred by narrowly construing the petition as only a termination request and by applying an incorrect burden of proof.
The trial court erred on both grounds. Courts must look to the facts alleged and issues presented rather than the form of the prayer for relief, and the burden of proof for modifying an agreed-upon alimony award is the same as for modifying a court-ordered award.
[1] A court must look to the facts alleged, the issues, and the proof to determine the nature of the relief to be granted, rather than solely the prayer for relief.
[2] A petition for modification or termination of alimony is sufficiently noticed to the opposing party and the court when the body of the petition requests modification or t…
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 petition unambiguously requested modification or termination of alimony, the prayer for relief at the end of the petition only referenced termination of alimony. The trial court erroneously concluded that failure to include the modification request in the prayer for relief should control over those portions of the petition requesting modification.”
Establishes the core error: the trial court's misinterpretation of the petition based on form rather than substance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEric and Jane Ellisen were former spouses with an alimony agreement. Eric filed a supplemental petition for modification of alimony. Although the peti…
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 Alimony Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
Eric Ellisen (“former husband”) appeals from a “Final Judgment on Former Husband’s Supplemental Petition for Modification of Alimony and Former Wife’s Motion for Civil Contempt/Enforcement.” He only appeals the denial of his modification petition. The former husband correctly argues that the trial court erred by narrowly construing his modification petition as a request to terminate alimony, thus rejecting his request for modification. Both his modification peti*1271tion and the pretrial stipulation put the former wife and the court on notice that the former husband was seeking modification or termination.1 Additionally, the former husband argues, and the former wife correctly concedes, that the trial court evaluated the evidence using an incorrect burden of proof.2
Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order denying the former husband’s petition to modify or terminate alimony, and remand with directions that the trial court reconsider the issue applying the correct burden of proof:
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, LAWSON and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mannella v. Mannella, 363 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)…sions treat Overbey’s “heavier burden” reference, in dicta, as a rule of law, despite section 61.14(7)’s clear directive. At least one court has recognized that Overbey’s proclamation has been superseded by section 61.14(7). See Ellisen v. Ellisen, 150 So. 3d 1270, 1271 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Ellisen, however, addressed a supplemental petition to decrease alimony, which falls outside the statutory definition of “support” in section 61.14(7) in non-Department of Revenue proceedings. Id. at 1270; § 61.046(2…
-
Inman v. Inman, 260 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…); Simpson v. Simpson, 68 So. 3d 958, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Pollock v. Pollock, 722 So. 2d 283, 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). However, as our sister courts have recognized, we are bound by the language of section 61.14(7). See Ellisen v. Ellisen, 150 So. 3d 1270, 1271 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Garvey v. Garvey, 138 So. 3d 1115, 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). - 4 - The trial court determined that the Former Husband established that his current employment situation constituted a substantial change in circum…
-
Knowlton v. Marja-Leena Knowlton (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1997)
- Singer v. Tobin, 201 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- State v. Derrell K. Kelley, 399 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Circle Fin. Co. v. Peacock, 399 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Golden v. Davey L. Woodward, Jr., 15 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Boulware v. Coal. FOR THE Homeless OF Cent. Fla., 702 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Knight v. Knight, 702 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)