GEORGE L. MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
VIVA MABEL MOORE, 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.
George Moore appealed the chancellor's denial of his petition to reduce alimony and the court's grant of lump sum alimony to his ex-wife Viva Moore in supplemental proceedings. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the trial court had authority to modify the original periodic alimony award to a lump sum in supplemental proceedings and did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction request.
The trial court had authority to award lump sum alimony in supplemental proceedings modifying a decree that originally provided for periodic payments, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the husband's petition for reduction of alimony.
“Modification of a decree for alimony is a matter in which the chancellor has broad discretion and ordinarily his ruling will not be disturbed.”
Establishes the standard of review for alimony modification decisions and the deference owed to trial court discretion.
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 under a final decree that provided for periodic alimony payments to Viva Moore. George Moore later petitioned to reduce his …
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 Supplemental Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant petitioned the Circuit Court to reduce his alimony payments on the basis of a reduction in income since the final decree of divorce. Appellee filed a counter petition asking for more alimony due to her increased needs since the divorce, or in the alternative, that alimony in a lump sum be awarded to her. The chancellor denied the petition for reduction of alimony but granted the counter petition for lump sum alimony awarding to appellee a $9,500.-00 interest in a $14,250.00 mortgage owned by the appellant.
The appellant contends that the chancellor on the evidence before him should have reduced his alimony payments, and next, that having failed to award alimony in a lump sum by the final decree, the Court was without authority to do so later in supplemental proceedings.
Modification of a decree for alimony is a matter in which the chancellor has broad discretion and ordinarily his ruling will not be disturbed. Vilas v. Vilas, 153 Fla. 102, 13 So.2d 807; Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902. We find no abuse of discretion by the chancellor in denying the husband’s petition for reduction of alimony.
The matter of the Court’s power to award lump sum alimony in proceedings supplemental to the final decree, which provided for alimony in periodic payments, presents a question of first impression in Florida. We hold that the chancellor, by so doing, acted within the bounds of his authority.
*879F.S. § 65.08, F.S.A. authorizes the Court to order payment of alimony in periodic payments or by payment in a lump sum “as from the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case may be fit, equitable and just”. And F.S. § 65.15, F.S.A. provides for the future modification of a decree for alimony as “justice and equity shall require, with due regard to the changed circumstances and the financial ability of the husband * *
In Keezer on Marriage and Divorce, Third Edition, Section 655, on page 714, it is said:
“After a decree for alimony or other allowance for the wife and children * * * the Court may from time to time, on the petition of either party, revise and alter such decree, and may make any decree which it might have made in the original suit.”
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simon v. Simon, 155 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…this case cannot be said to be error. Compare Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So. 2d 902. Appellant’s second point is directed to the weight of the evidence and must be denied upon authority of the rule stated in Moore v. Moore, Fla.App. 1959, 113 So. 2d 878. The third point presented charges error because the chancellor made his modi [*850] fication effective on a date subsequent to the filing of the petition for modification, but prior to the date of the final hearing. The effective date of an order…
-
Ottis Tal Hilson v. Hilson, 145 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…ithin the province of the chancellor and will not be disturbed upon appeal unless an abuse of discretion clearly appears. See Vilas v. Vilas, 153 Fla. 102, 13 So. 2d 807. Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So. 2d 902. Moore v. Moore, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 878. That portion of the chancellor’s order holding appellant in contempt reads as follows: “2. That the Defendant, OTTIS TAL HILSON be, and he is hereby held in contempt of this Honorable Court for failure to make support payments and alimony payment…
-
Mann v. Mann, 145 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…of the wife and the children from the state contributed to the accumulation of the arrear-age. Appellant has failed to demonstrate error under either of the remaining points. Cf., Fort v. Fort, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 313; Moore v. Moore, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 878. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blanton v. Oneida Langley Blanton, 154 Fla. 750 (Fla. 1944)
- Vilas v. Vilas, 153 Fla. 102 (Fla. 1943)