WENDY L. MAHLE
v.
STEPHEN E. MAHLE
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.
The Fourth District affirmed the trial court's denial of a former wife's petition to modify permanent periodic alimony, holding that eligible but unapplied-for Social Security benefits cannot be imputed as income to the recipient spouse absent a stipulation or finding contemplating retirement at a specific age.
A trial court may not impute the value of a recipient spouse's eligible but unapplied-for Social Security benefits as income when the evidence shows the spouse would receive larger benefits by deferring receipt and the deferral represents a prudent investment strategy.
[1] Eligible but unapplied-for Social Security benefits may not be imputed as income to a recipient spouse in an alimony modification proceeding absent a stipulation in the m…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWendy L. Mahle sought to modify permanent periodic alimony awarded to her former husband Stephen E. Mahle pursuant to their marital settlement agreeme…
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 Substantial And Material Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
ARTAU, J.
Wendy L. Mahle (the former wife) appeals from a final judgment denying her petition to modify the permanent periodic alimony awarded to Stephen E. Mahle (the former husband) pursuant to a marital settlement agreement (MSA) adopted by the trial court as part of their divorce judgment. We affirm on all issues because the trial court correctly concluded that the former wife failed to sufficiently prove the existence of a substantial and material change in the parties’ circumstances to warrant modification of the former husband’s alimony award.
In Huertas Del Pino v. Huertas Del Pino, 229 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), we held that a trial court may not impute, as income to a recipient spouse, the value of that spouse’s eligible, but as-yet unapplied-for, Social Security benefits, if the evidence presented demonstrates that the receiving spouse “would receive larger benefits if he or she decided to defer benefits until a later time” and if there is no evidence to suggest that the decision to defer receipt of the benefits was anything other than “a prudent investment strategy[.]” Id. at 842.
In the absence of a stipulation in the parties’ MSA or a finding in their divorce judgment contemplating retirement at a certain age, we find no distinction between this case and Huertas Del Pino. See id. at 841-42 (holding that unless a recipient spouse was “receiving Social Security benefits … when the trial court decided alimony” or “absent some other compelling reason,” the value of eligible but as-yet unapplied-for Social Security benefits is “not subject to imputation”).
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly adhered to Huertas Del Pino in declining to impute the value of former husband’s eligible, but as-yet unapplied-for, Social Security benefits.
We therefore affirm, because the trial court correctly concluded that the former wife failed to sufficiently prove the existence of a substantial and material change in the parties’ circumstances to warrant modification of the alimony award.
Affirmed.
WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anemey K. Huertas del Pino v. del Pino, 229 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)