JOSEPHINE S. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE W. WILLIAMS, 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 reversed a lower court's decision to eliminate alimony entirely, finding insufficient evidence that the wife's circumstances had changed to warrant such a modification of the divorce decree.
No, the husband failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting the elimination of alimony. The record did not clearly establish the wife's current income or whether it exceeded what was contemplated at the time of the original decree.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the lack of sufficient evidence to support the modification.
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 divorced in 1963, with the wife receiving child support and alimony. In 1967, the husband petitioned to modify the decree, citing changed …
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 Petition For Modification Of Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
The parties were divorced in 1963. The Chancellor awarded appellant wife an allowance for the support of the children and $50.00 per week alimony for eight weeks and $25.00 per week thereafter. In 1967 appellee filed a petition for modification of the final decree, asserting “circumstances have drastically changed.’’ The parties have been represented by a succession of attorneys over the years and it is understandable that the learned chancellor who granted the petition for modification by eliminating alimony entirely had forgotten, but the record shows, his contemplation at the time of the final decree that the wife would soon thereafter seek employment. The chancellor’s order of September 1, 1967, recites that appellant “is employed earning an average of at least $60.00 per week take-home pay.” The record does not permit us to determine the exact amount of her income or whether it exceeds that contemplated at the time of entry of the final decree. The appellee’s acquisition of a new family is immaterial, Schiff v. Schiff, 54 So.2d 36 (Fla.1951). He has shown no inability to make the payments, Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, 178 So.2d 346 (2d D.C.A. Fla.1965), Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So.2d 66 (Fla.1954). The husband’s income has not diminished. It has, in fact, increased.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The petition for rehearing and the appellant’s reply thereto suggest that we did not make it clear that the order appealed from is not necessarily erroneous in result. It is merely unsupported by findings in the record. The petition for rehearing is granted and the opinion, as modified, is adhered to.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ-, concur.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing and the appellant’s reply thereto suggest that we did not make it clear that the order appealed from is not necessarily erroneous in result. It is merely unsupported by findings in the record. The petition for rehearing is granted and the opinion, as modified, is adhered to.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quinn v. Maxie E. Quinn, 307 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…nce the entry of the final judgment appellee’s income has actually increased. The fact that his expenses have also increased because he has a new family is immaterial. Schiff v. Schiff, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 36; Williams v. Williams, Fla.App.2d, 1968, 212 So. 2d 778. Appellee has failed to demonstrate the significant change in circumstances or financial ability of either party necessary to justify a modification. Reversed. McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1954)
- Schiff v. Schiff, 54 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1951)
- Baird Russell Tewksbury, Jr. v. Tewksbury, 178 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)