LILBURN R. RAILEY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
RUTH S. RAILEY, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision to reduce alimony payments, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
No, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in reducing alimony payments rather than eliminating them entirely.
“This is an appeal from an order reducing alimony payments from $150.00 per month, as set in the final decree, to $87.50 per month.”
Describes the subject of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband (appellant) petitioned to reduce alimony payments from $150 to $87.50 per month. He cited a reduction in his income and an increase…
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 Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order reducing alimony payments from $150.00 per month, as set in the final decree, to $87.50 per month. The reduction was upon the petition of the appellant. The basis of the change was a reduction of the former husband’s income and an increase in the former wife’s income occasioned by employment which she testified was necessary in order to supplement the alimony and child support payments provided in the final decree. The former husband, as appellant, urges on this appeal that the court erred in failing to eliminate all alimony.
We cannot agree that this record demonstrates that the trial judge abused the broad discretion the law requires that he exercise upon such an application. Cf. Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902; Mann v. Mann, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d .886.
Affirmed.