ALBERT RIEDER, APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHY RIEDER, 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.
Albert Rieder appealed a divorce decree that incorporated a settlement agreement requiring bimonthly alimony and child support payments. The trial court struck his allegations and prayer for modification based on alleged changed circumstances in his earnings, and the appellate court reversed, holding that such settlement agreements are subject to modification under Florida law.
The settlement agreement was subject to modification under § 65.15, and the trial court erred in striking the allegations and prayer for modification. The appellant's allegations of changed circumstances were sufficient to require the chancellor to consider evidence in support thereof, though the court expressed no opinion on whether modification would ultimately be warranted.
“the agreement of the parties was subject to modification under the terms of the statute, § 65.15, supra”
Establishes the core holding that settlement agreements providing for alimony and child support are modifiable under Florida law.
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 executed a settlement agreement on November 15, 1960, providing for bimonthly alimony and child support payments. Rieder filed for divorce…
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 Modification Of Alimony And Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, plaintiff below, seeks reversal of that portion of a final decree of divorce which ratified, confirmed and adopted as a part of the decree a prior settlement agreement between the parties. This agreement, inter alia, provided for bimonthly alimony and child support payments.
The appellant in his complaint for divorce alleged the existence of the agreement and the fact that it provided for alimony and child support; that in the last year and a half, his earnings had been reduced to such an extent that he was unable to comply with the terms of the agreement. A copy of the agreement was attached to the complaint. The appellee moved to strike these allegations of the complaint as well as the prayer for modification and reduction.
Upon a hearing, the court struck the allegations and the prayer for relief which sought the reduction of the alimony and support payments. The granting of the appellee’s motion to strike that portion of the complaint seeking reduction in the alimony and support payments is the appellant’s lone assignment of error on this appeal.
The appellant contends the reason why the chancellor struck that portion of the complaint and prayer for reduction was his erroneous conclusion that the agreement between the parties was a property settlement agreement and, therefore, not subject to modification under the provisions of § 65.15, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The order striking the allegations of the complaint did not assign a reason therefor, nor does the record otherwise disclose such reason. We are not at liberty to speculate as to the chancellor’s reason for entering the questioned order. Suffice it to say that whatever his reason may have been, we feel he reached the wrong legal conclusion.
We have examined the agreement, the allegations of the complaint, and the relief requested and conclude that under the prevailing authorities, the agreement of the parties was subject to modification under the terms of the statute, § 65.15, supra. See Hunter v. Hunter, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 478; Kosch v. Kosch, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 547. The agreement appears to have been executed on the 15th day of November, 1960, and the bill of complaint for divorce was filed on May 9, 1962. The appellant alleged that within the last year and a half his earnings had been reduced to such a point that he was unable to comply with the alimony and support payments provided in the agreement, and further, that the appellee-wife was able and qualified to earn ample funds for her own support. These allegations of changed circumstances were sufficient to require the chancellor to consider evidence in support thereof.
We do not suggest by our holding here that the appellant is or is not entitled to a reduction, but only that the agreement is one which is subject to modification under the statute. Accordingly, that portion of the final decree appealed is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lang v. Lang, 252 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…hildren are always subject to review and approval by the court, the guiding star being the best interests and welfare of the children. See also Lee v. Lee, 1946, 157 Fla. 439, 26 So. 2d 177; McKenna v. McKenna, supra; Rieder v. Rieder, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 93; Lopez v. Avery, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 689; Stanley v. Stanley, 1947, 158 Fla. 402, 28 So. 2d 694; and Margolis v. Margolis, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 1. In Lee v. Lee, supra, the Supreme Court of Florida, in permitting a modification of a separation…
-
Ohmes v. Ohmes, 200 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…Fla. 788, 16 So. 2d 641; Dawkins v. Dawkins, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 633; Haynes v. Haynes, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 491; Hunter v. Hunter, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 478; Eisinger v. Eisinger, Fla. 1957, 95 So. 2d 502, and Rieder v. Rieder, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 93. The order appealed from dismissed the Petition for Modification without any hearing, upon the theory that F.S. Sec. 65.15 F.S.A., was not available to petitioner. In this, the Chancellor was in error under the decisions hereinbefore reviewed. But…
-
Waddell v. Waddell, 305 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…enty crucial words following the conveying of the marital residence to the wife constitute a [*32] non-modifiable property settlement obligation upon the appellant husband or rather a modifiable support provision. See Rieder v. Rieder, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 93. What concerns us is the “substance” of the agreement, more than its “form.” See Underwood v. Underwood, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 281. We do not question at all the appellant’s continuing obligation to pay for the mortgage, tax and insurance on the house…
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
- Kosch v. Kosch, 113 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1959)
- Hunter v. Earle H. Hunter, 108 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)