CARMEN ALLEN RAMONA, APPELLANT,
v.
ISABEL MARIA RAMONA, 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 husband appeals a post-divorce order modifying alimony and child support, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the increase, the retroactive application of the new payments, and an award of attorney's fees to his ex-wife's counsel. The appellate court affirmed the modification but reversed portions regarding excessive retroactivity and the attorney's fee award.
The court affirmed the increase in alimony and child support payments and their retroactive application to the date the modification petition was filed, but reversed the requirement for retroactive payments dating to October 11, 1968 and reversed the award of attorney's fees. The case was remanded for determination of the correct petition filing date.
[1] A party seeking modification of a divorce decree must present competent material evidence of a substantial change in circumstances to justify an increase in alimony and c…
[2] An appellate court may affirm retroactive requirements of a modification order if the record is unclear regarding the filing date of the petition for modification.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 have been provided with an insufficient record on appeal to reverse on this point.”
Establishes that the husband failed to provide adequate appellate record to challenge the evidentiary basis for 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 intelligenceCarmen Allen Ramona and Isabel Maria Ramona were divorced under a final decree. The wife filed a petition to modify the decree seeking increased alimo…
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 Modification Of Alimony And Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
The husband, Carmen Allen Ramona, appeals from an order dated April 30, 1970 which modified a prior final decree of divorce.
The post decretal order increased the alimony and child support payments due to the wife from the husband; required that they be paid for certain retroactive periods and awarded fees to the wife’s attorney.
On appeal, the husband complains of a lack of “competent material evidence to prove a substantial change” in the circumstances of the wife sufficient to sustain an award increasing the child support and alimony payments.
We have been provided with an insufficient record on appeal to reverse on this point. Cf. Insured Lloyds v. James, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 595 and Coggan v. Coggan, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 131.
The husband challenges the retroactive requirements of the order as it relates to child support and alimony payments.
In one part the order required the husband to make the increased payments of child support and alimony beginning March 1, 1970. The record is unclear as to whether the petition for modification was filed on March 1, 1970 or March 3, 1969. We affirm the retroactive requirements of the order as to the correct date upon which the petition was filed and remand the cause to the trial court for a determination of that date. Alterman v. Alterman, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 472.
Another part of the order required the husband to pay retroactive alimony and child support from October 11, 1968 to March 1, 1970. Under Alterman, supra, we hold this part of the order to be erroneous and reverse.
The husband challenged the award of attorneys’ fees to the attorney for the wife.
The attorneys’ fees were awarded for services rendered to the wife on her petition for modification of the final decree by increasing the alimony and child support payments. Generally, a wife is entitled to attorneys’ fees where proceedings are brought to “enforce” a decree for child support or alimony but not where the proceedings are brought by her for modification of such a decree. 10 Fla.Jur. Divorce, Etc. §§ 148 and 149.
The order is affirmed as to the increase in alimony and child support payments and as to the requirement that those payments be made retroactive until the date upon which the petition for modification was filed; it is remanded to the trial court for a determination and adjudication as to that date; it is reversed as to the requirements for retroactive payments from October 11, 1968 to March 1, 1970 and as to attorneys’ fees.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berger v. Jacquie R. Berger, 559 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…erring custody of Samantha to Jacquie. Pegging the retroactive support to this date, 27 months prior to the date the petition seeking child support was filed, was incorrect. Pottinger v. Pottinger, 133 Fla. 442, 182 So. 762 (1938); Ramona v. Ramona, 244 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Alterman v. Alterman, 208 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). On remand the trial court shall adjust the child support to reflect that it is retroactive to the date of filing the petition for modification. The court further ordered t…
-
Quackenbush v. Quackenbush, 47 Fla. Supp. 66 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1978)…master to allow a two month hiatus without rehabilitative alimony. (Under the June 3rd decree, alimony terminated on May 1, 1977. Under the master’s recommendation it would recommence on August 1, 1977.) The former-wife relies upon Romona v. Romona, 244 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) for the proposition that the master could have made the alimony retroactive to the filing date of the petition for modification. In that the court has previously determined that the master’s findings of fact fully justify a conti…
Authorities Cited
- Alterman v. Alterman, 208 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Coggan v. Coggan, 130 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Insured Lloyds v. Bertram M. James, 200 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Ramona v. Ramona, 223 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)