MARY LOUISE PURCELL, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS M. PURCELL, APPELLEE
MARY LOUISE PURCELL, APPELLANT,
LOUIS M. PURCELL, APPELLEE
223 So. 2d 389
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1969)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
By this appeal Appellant, the divorced wife of Appellee, contests the trial court’s order reducing alimony from $708.33 to $600.00 per month.
Our review of the record reveals that competent evidence was presented to the trial court reflecting a material change in *390the husband’s health, financial ability and economic prospects for his business. Since the evidence clearly shows the husband’s financial incapacity to continue alimony payments in the amount agreed upon by the parties and ordered by the divorce decree, it is axiomatic that the trial judge in his discretion may modify the decree and order a reduction. Therefore, the decree appealed is
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chappell v. Chappell, 253 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…ondary method of relief, depending, of course, on the severity of the income tax levy. He is entitled to apply to the court for modification of the alimony award based on a material change in his ability to pay same. Purcell v. Purcell, Ma.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 389; Chord v. Chord, Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 281.…
-
Alda Phyllis Feldman v. Al Feldman, 317 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…the alimony award from $500 to $1,500 per month was not an abuse of discretion as there was a sufficient change in the circumstances of the parties to warrant a modification of the property settlement agreement. Cf. Purcell v. Purcell, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 389; Conklin v. Conklin, Fla.App. 1973, 286 So. 2d 236. Accordingly, the order herein appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. . for which appellee currently is providing the rent.…
-
Byrd v. Byrd, 40 Fla. Supp. 23 (Lake Cty. Cir. Ct. 1973)…ing an agreement of the parties — a fortiori the court has authority not to initially adopt an agreement, due to the changed circumstances and the financial ability of the parties since entry into such an agreement. Purcell v. Purcell (DCA1, 1969), 223 So. 2d 389, confirms that it is axiomatic that the trial judge in his discretion may modify the agreement of the parties, if the husband’s financial incapacity to make the payments agreed upon is supported by the evidence, as in this cause. Florida Statute 61…