FRANCES G. REED, APPELLANT,
v.
ERNEST L. REED, JR., 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 the trial court's denial of alimony by retaining jurisdiction to allow future alimony awards if the parties' financial circumstances materially change.
A trial court must retain jurisdiction to award alimony in the future upon a showing of changed financial circumstances, even when denying alimony at the time of divorce.
[1] A trial court must retain jurisdiction to award alimony upon a subsequent showing of materially changed financial circumstances of either party, even when alimony is init…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrances Reed sought alimony in her divorce from Ernest Reed, Jr. The trial court denied alimony, and the case had previously been remanded for further…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a final judgment in a divorce suit, the issue herein being the failure to award alimony to appellant. This matter has been before the court earlier at which time we entered our decision remanding the case for further action. Said decision is reported at 226 So.2d 114.
Upon consideration of the record on appeal, the briefs and the arguments of counsel, it is our view that there is a sufficient evidentiary showing of a likelihood that appellee’s financial circumstances will materially improve hereafter, thus enabling him to make alimony payments to appellant in the future. Alternatively, the circumstances of appellant may be so changed in the future as to justify or require the award of alimony payments in the event of such change. In order to enable the court below to consider an application for alimony by appellant in the event of changing circumstances by either party, the judgment reviewed in this appeal is hereby amended so as to expressly retain jurisdiction of this cause for future award of alimony upon proper showing.
Except as modified by retaining jurisdiction in accordance with the above, the order appealed is
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…our sister courts that it is error for the court not [*833] to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony to the wife in the future. Dings v. Dings, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 227; Steele v. Steele, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 873; Reed v. Reed, Fla.App.1971, 244 So. 2d 449. The reservation of jurisdiction, we feel, ought to be made to depend upon the particular facts. The facts in the case sub judice support the trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction and we find no abuse of discretion in this regard. Accordingly,…
-
Mirth K. Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…discretion, it cannot be disturbed on appeal. Id. at 17. The rule, generally, is that where there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of alimony, the court should retain jurisdiction. Reed v. Reed, 244 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Roberts v. Roberts, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Mumm v. Mumm, 353 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Hunt v. Hunt, 394 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). While the burden of persuasion as to retention of jurisdiction would be…
-
POE v. POE, 263 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…. Schiff v. Schiff, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 295; Dings v. Dings, supra; Steele v. Steele, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 873; Barfield v. Barfield, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 132; Carmody v. Carmody, Fla.App.1970, 230 So. 2d 40; Reed v. Reed, Fla.App.1971, 244 So. 2d 449; Melton v. Melton, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 705; Greene v. Greene, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 258; but see: Pendleton v. Pendleton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 499; Steinhau v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 825. It is noted that these cases turn o…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reed v. Reed, 226 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)