JEAN BARBARA GREENE, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD LEONARD GREENE, 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.
In this divorce appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's alimony and support provisions as inadequate and favoring the husband. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but modified it to relieve the wife of responsibility for home repairs and to reserve jurisdiction for future periodic alimony awards based on changed circumstances.
The court affirmed the judgment but modified it in two respects: (1) relieved the wife of the obligation for upkeep and repairs to the residence and placed that burden on the husband; and (2) reserved jurisdiction in the trial court to award periodic alimony in addition to the lump sum if future changes in circumstances make it necessary or reasonably required for the wife's support.
[1] A trial court may modify a divorce judgment to place the obligation for residence upkeep and repairs upon the husband.
[2] A trial court may reserve jurisdiction to award periodic alimony in addition to lump sum alimony upon a showing of changed circumstances or necessity.
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“The effect of the alimony provisions was to furnish the wife with yearly amounts, for a certain period of years, which were not shown to be more than would be needed annually for the maintenance and support of herself and the children on the scale on which they were entitled to live during that period, with a reasonable probability that she may be left at the end of such period, at an age of approximately 55 years, without a residence and without support for which she may have need.”
Establishes the court's concern about the inadequacy of the alimony arrangement and its potential to leave the wife without means of support in later life.
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 by uncontested judgment as to grounds. The wife was awarded custody of two children (ages 10 and 13), lump sum alimony payable im…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the plaintiff wife from a judgment which granted her a divorce, seeking reversal with regard to the provisions therein relating to alimony and support. The cause was uncontested as to the ground of divorce. Lump sum alimony was awarded, payable in a certain amount at the time of the judgment and in installments over a period of years. The wife was awarded custody of two children of the parties, 10 and 13 years of age at the time of the judgment. Certain child support was allowed, and the wife was given permission to reside, with the children, in the residence previously occupied by the parties. The residence was owned one *259third by the husband, and two thirds by the children under a trust. It was provided that the privilege of occupancy thereof by the wife would end when the children attained majority, or sooner if the wife should remarry or remove therefrom. The judgment required the husband to pay the taxes and insurance on the residence premises, but imposed upon the wife the burden of its upkeep and repair, with permission to the husband to have repairs made to the premises and deduct the cost thereof from unmatured payments of alimony.
The effect of the alimony provisions was to furnish the wife with yearly amounts, for a certain period of years, which were not shown to be more than would be needed annually for the maintenance and support of herself and the children on the scale on which they were entitled to live during that period, with a reasonable probability that she may be left at the end of such period, at an age of approximately 55 years, without a residence and without support for which she may have need.
Counsel for appellant argued earnestly and with considerable logic that the provisions relating to alimony and support were unfavorable to her and favorable to the husband, and were insufficient in certain respects, and thereby constituted abuse of discretion. Without undertaking to detail the contentions thereon pro and con, this court upon consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs concludes that the appellant has not demonstrated reversible error, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with certain modifications.
Accordingly, it is directed that upon remand of the cause to the trial court an order shall be entered modifying and amending the judgment in two respects. One is to relieve the wife of the requirement for the upkeep and repairs to the residence premises during her occupancy thereof and to place the obligation therefor upon the husband. The second is to amend the judgment to include a reservation of jurisdiction by the trial court to award to the wife, in addition to the granted lump sum alimony, periodic alimony at such time or times and in such amount or amounts as it may be made by her to appear, from changes in circumstances of the parties or otherwise, to have become necessary or reasonably required for her support.
Judgment affirmed, subject to modification and amendment thereof as directed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Langston v. Langston, 251 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), it is not required. Elkins v. Elkins, 287 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Poe v. Poe, 263 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Cf. Greene v. Greene, 256 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (where alimony provisions would probably terminate at a time when the wife had no other income). We do find error, however, in the trial court’s failure to credit the wife for the interest on mortgage payments she made under the…
-
POE v. POE, 263 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…pp.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 on a question of discretion exercised by the trial court under the peculiar circumstances of the…
-
Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…iodic alimony at such time or times and in such amount or amounts as it may be made by her. to appear, from changes in circumstances of the parties, to have become necessary or reasonably required for her support. See Greene v. Greene, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 258 and Cf. Melin v. Melin, Fla.App.1972, 265 So. 2d 414; Reback v. Reback, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 541; Schwartz v. Schwartz, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 117. We also considered the issue raised by appellee, ex-husband, on cross-appeal and find that to…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence