CATHERINE E. ROPKE, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT W. ROPKE, 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.
Catherine Ropke appealed a circuit court order that allowed her ex-husband Albert to withhold $10 per week from alimony payments as reimbursement for a $500 insurance policy she had cashed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to reduce alimony payments, regardless of the underlying reason for the reduction.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the trial court had discretion to reduce alimony payments for any period of time it deemed appropriate, and that the reasons underlying such reduction were immaterial.
“Without deciding whether the Chancellor was correct as to the ownership of the insurance policy or not, we are of the opinion that the Chancellor was within his rights in reducing the alimony payments for any period of time he saw fit and it is immaterial as to what the Chancellor's reasons were.”
Establishes the court's holding that the trial court has broad discretion to reduce alimony payments regardless of the underlying justification.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlbert Ropke defaulted on three weeks of alimony payments totaling $75. Catherine obtained a Rule to Show Cause. Albert testified he had not paid beca…
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 Equitable Setoff cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final order of Circuit Court, Escambia County, Hon. M. C. Blanchard, J., denying relief to the appellant, who was defendant below on a contempt proceeding for default in alimony payments.
The appellee was in default in the amount of $75.00 for three weeks alimony payments, and appellant obtained Rule to Show Cause. Appellee appeared before the court and testified that the reason he had not. made the alimony payments was because the appellant had cashed an insurance policy belonging to the appellee for $500.00,, which policy was a paid up endowment policy for such amount on the life of appellant. Appellee claimed that the policy belonged to him and that he had told appellant not to cash it, but she did anyway. She claims she may have procured the policy while married to appellee and while-she was working. The policy was not produced but the court found that the policy belonged to the appellee and that by cashing it, the appellant became indebted to the-appellee in amount thereof, $500.00, and', directed that appellee could continue to> withhold $10.00 per week from alimony payments until the total of $500.00 had been repaid to appellee. It is from this order that appellant appeals.
*123Without deciding whether the Chancellor ■was correct as to the ownership of the insurance policy or not, we are of the •opinion that the Chancellor was within his Tights in reducing the alimony payments for any period of time he saw fit and it is ■immaterial as to what the Chancellor’s rea•sons were.
Therefore, we affirm the results of the ■Chancellor’s order.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.