ANNE M. BRUGGISSER, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR T. BRUGGISSER, 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.
A former wife appealed an order denying her petition for increased alimony payments. The appellate court reversed, finding that the uncontroverted evidence showed the husband's income had not decreased since the original divorce decree, while the wife's needs remained unmet, warranting an increase in alimony.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the alimony increase petition. Because the evidence regarding the husband's current income was uncontroverted, the appellate court could review the trial court's judgment despite the general deference afforded to trial courts in alimony matters. The court reversed and remanded for a new hearing with directions to grant an increase in alimony commensurate with the wife's needs and the husband's ability to pay.
[1] An appellate court may substitute its judgment for that of the trial court when the trial court's judgment is based upon uncontroverted evidence.
[2] A trial court must grant an increase in alimony commensurate with a former spouse's needs and the other spouse's ability to pay.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We are not unmindful of the rule that an appellate court will not ordinarily substitute its judgment for that of the trial court when the trial court's judgment is based upon controverted evidence.”
Establishes the standard deference appellate courts normally give to trial court judgments in factual matters.
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 were divorced in 1960, with the husband ordered to pay $150 weekly alimony and $100 weekly child support. The husband's alimony was reduce…
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 Increase In Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal by a former wife from an order denying her petition for increase in alimony payments. The parties were divorced in 1960. In the final decree the appellee husband was ordered to pay to the appellant $150 per week as alimony and $100 per week as child support for the parties’ two minor children. Because of a change in the health of the appellee and consequent reduction in his *279earning capacity, the amount of alimony was twice reduced. Appellee currently pays $80 weekly alimony, $15 a week for the daughter, who is in college and whom he is supporting there, and $40 a week for the son, whose hoarding school expenses the appellee is also paying. The un-controverted evidence before the trial court shows that appellee’s current income substantially equals his income at the time of the divorce. No reduction in the needs of the wife was shown.
The record reveals that on the day immediately prior to the hearing on appellant’s petition, the appellee placed the minor son of the parties in a boarding school without previous consultation with the appellant mother. Nevertheless, she did not object and stated in the record that she thought attendance at the school was in the boy’s best interest.
We are not unmindful of the rule that an appellate court will not ordinarily substitute its jtidgment for that of the trial, court when the trial court’s judgment is based upon controverted evidence. See, e. g., Neal v. Harrington, 159 Fla. 381, 31 So.2d 391 (1947). In addition we acknowledge that this rule is especially applicable in cases regarding the amount of alimony. It is our conclusion that this cause does not fall within the purview of that rule, since the evidence concerning the husband’s current income was uncontroverted. Cf. Duncanson v. Service First, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 696, 699.
The order appealed must be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial judge with directions to conduct a new hearing upon appellant’s petition. After the hearing the court shall enter an order granting the appellant an increase in alimony commensurate with her needs and with the appellee’s ability to pay. In addition the trial judge shall, if he sees fit, modify the award of support for the son, who is in boarding school.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bruggisser v. Bruggisser, 244 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…urt and for entry of “an order granting the appellant an increase in alimony commensurate with her needs and with the appellee’s ability to pay,” and authorizing the trial court to “modify the award of support of the son, who is in boarding school.” 231 So. 2d 278. Following such remand, the cause came on for further hearing on the matters of alimony and child support, and upon a petition filed by the husband seeking transfer of custody to him. Thereupon the court entered the order from which the wife has fi…
Authorities Cited
- Duncanson v. Serv. First, Inc., 157 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Neal v. Harrington, 159 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1947)