EUGENIE MURRHEE SUTER, APPELLANT,
v.
MAX SUTER, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's reduction of alimony from $2,200 to $1,350 per month and its authorization for future financial review. The court held that both pre- and post-1971 Florida law grant trial courts discretion to modify alimony amounts and duration based on the parties' circumstances.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion to reduce alimony payments under both pre- and post-1971 Florida law. The court also correctly authorized a review of the parties' financial situations upon proper motion. The 1971 legislative changes creating 'no-fault' divorce do not eliminate the trial court's discretion in determining alimony amounts and duration.
[1] A trial court has the authority to reduce alimony payments under both prior and current Florida law.
[2] A trial court may order a review of the financial situations of parties to a divorce upon proper motion after a specified period.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“under the law as it existed prior to the 1971 Act of the Legislature, as well as under the present law, F.S. Section 61.-08 (1971), F.S.A., the trial court was authorized to reduce the alimony payments and also to provide for permanent alimony”
Establishes that trial courts have authority to modify alimony under both old and new Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a final divorce judgment on February 9, 1972, reducing the wife's alimony from $2,200 per month to $1,350 per month. The trial…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, modifying a final judgment of divorce entered on February 9, 1972, and an order on rehearing, dated February 25, 1972. In the order of February 9, 1972, alimony to the wife was reduced from $2200.00 per month to $1350.00 per month. The trial court reviewed the facts and circumstances surrounding this case and made findings of fact as to why the reduced alimony was decreed.
In the order on rehearing dated February 25, 1972, the trial court decreed that a review of the financial situations of the parties would be entertained by that court upon proper motion being filed before the court after six months from the date thereof.
We dispose of the latter order, February 25, 1972, by saying that the trial court was correct in authorizing a review of the financial situations of the parties. No error was committed in this regard.
As to the authority of the trial court to reduce the alimony payments, we hold that under the law as it existed prior to the 1971 Act of the Legislature, as well as under the present law, F.S. Section 61.-08 (1971), F.S.A., the trial court was authorized to reduce the alimony payments and also to provide for permanent alimony. We do not find any conflict between this holding and the holding in Thigpen v. Thigpen, Fla.App., 277 So.2d 583, and handed down. by this Court on May 10, 1973. This latter case recognized the fact that the basic nature and purpose of alimony remains today, under the so called “no fault” divorce law, the same as prior thereto. We agree that under the philosophy emanating from the new law the trial court would be more inclined to limit the duration and amount of alimony payments, but this does not mandatorily reduce the exercise of judicial discretion by the trial court.
*326In the case sub judice, it appears to this Court that the trial court was very meticulous in his treatment of evidence submitted by both parties. The fact that the proffered evidence of a trust fund had accrued to the benefit of the appellant-defendant, was not accepted by the trial court does not necessarily render such ruling erroneous. The trial court appears to have taken into consideration all the evidence that was necessary for him to do equity and justice between the parties. F.S. § 61.08(2), F.S.A.
The contention of the appellee that the trial court should have limited the duration of alimony under the presently existing statute is without merit in view of our determination that the new law does not remove the discretion left to the trial court.
For the reasons set forth above, the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…); Keller v. Keller, 308 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1974); Schultz v. Schultz, 290 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1974); Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. dism. 307 So. 2d 186; Dash v. Dash, 284 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973); Suter v. Suter, 279 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), cert. den. 284 So. 2d 396; Sharpe v. Sharpe, 267 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972); Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). We refer the reader to Florida Dissolution of Marriage (1976) Florida Bar C.L.E., p.…
-
Eugenie Murrhee Suter v. Suter, 284 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 279 So. 2d 325. ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, J., dissent.…
-
Craig v. Catharine S. Craig, 298 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…ssential needs. The fortuitous circumstance created by recitation of the marriage vows neither diminishes her capacity for self-support nor does it give her a vested right in her husband’s earnings for the remainder of her life.” In Suter v. Suter, 279 So. 2d 325 (1 Fla.App.1973), this Court was confronted with [*191] an order of the trial court reducing alimony from $2,200.00 per month to $1,350.00 within six months of the initial judgment. In affirming the action of the trial court we noted: “ . . . [T]ha…
Authorities Cited
- Manly W. Thigpen v. Thigpen, 277 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)