JEANNETTE CONKLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY CONKLIN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's reduction of alimony from $500 to $250 monthly where ex-wife's earning capacity increased and ex-husband's income rose modestly since the original divorce decree.
A trial court may reduce alimony when the obligor's financial circumstances improve and the obligee demonstrates increased earning capacity and ability to contribute to her own support.
[1] Changed circumstances of both obligor and obligee, including obligee's increased earning capacity, justify modification of alimony provisions in a property settlement agr…
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 intelligenceAppellant and appellee divorced approximately two and one-half years before the modification hearing. The original property settlement agreement, inco…
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 Earning Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a post-decretal order modifying a so-called property settlement agreement, which provided for alimony of $500.00 per month to be paid to the appellant. The said agreement was incorporated into the final decree of divorce some two and one-half years prior to modification.
Following the receipt of evidence at the hearing on modification, the trial court reduced the amount of alimony to $250.00 monthly. The evidence adduced reveals that appellee’s financial circumstances have been enhanced somewhat, his monthly income increasing some twenty-five per cent, resulting in a somewhat higher standard of living than he enjoyed at the time of the divorce. Correspondingly, the appellant, being released from the bonds of matrimony, has gone to work and was earning some $425.00 per month at the time of the order being reviewed. She is a licensed aviation ground instructor and a licensed real estate sales person in Texas. The evidence presented authorized a conclusion that appellant’s demonstrated ability to earn a living or, at least, to contribute to the earning of a livelihood reduces the necessity to fully rely on appel-lee’s continued contributions under the earlier agreement. Thus, the trial court’s order of reduction seems to be consistent with the discretion accorded a trial judge in the premises. See Martin v. Martin, Fla.App. 1972, 261 So. 2d 179; Beard v. Beard, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 269.
There being no error demonstrated by the entry of the order reviewed herein, the same is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alda Phyllis Feldman v. Al Feldman, 317 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…not an abuse of discretion as there was a sufficient change in the circumstances of the parties to warrant a modification of the property settlement agreement. Cf. Purcell v. Purcell, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 389; Conklin v. Conklin, Fla.App. 1973, 286 So. 2d 236. Accordingly, the order herein appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. . for which appellee currently is providing the rent.…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Armer E. White, 262 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Beard v. Beard, 262 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Cotton v. State, 261 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)