THOMAS E. LOCKHART, APPELLANT,
v.
RUTH I. LOCKHART, 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 court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the husband to pay monthly alimony until further order.
Following a dissolution of marriage, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $165 in monthly alimony to the wife until further order. The husband a…
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 Mandatory Retirement cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court directing the husband to pay to the wife $165 in monthly alimony “until further order of this Court,” which order followed a previous final judgment dissolving the marriage between the parties. We affirm.
The husband raises three separate points on appeal challenging the alimony award. In essence, all three points are directed to the question of whether or not the court abused its discretion by entry of the order appealed. We hold that the court did not. See, Fla.Stat. § 61.08, F.S.A.; Oliver v. Oliver, Fla.App.1973, 285 So. 2d 638.
In addition, the husband maintains that the alimony awarded to his wife, to whom he was married for thirty-three years, was permanent in nature. It is contended that the award should have been only rehabilitative because the husband, who is an airline pilot, will face mandatory retirement within the next five years. As indicated, the order on its face states that the monthly alimony award shall run until further order by. the court. In addition, the court retained jurisdiction of the parties.
Should the financial circumstances of the parties change, the court therefore may modify any award which has been entered previously. See Stamm v. Stamm, Fla.App. 1972, 266 So. 2d 413; Fla.Stat. § 61.14, F. S.A. For the reasons stated, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blackmon v. Blackmon, 307 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…of recent vintage in Florida statutes, but it appears that the Florida courts have recognized the right of a trial court to modify rehabilitative alimony when the circumstances of the parties have changed. [*889] Lockhart v. Lockhart, Fla.App.1974, 293 So. 2d 754; Stamm v. Stamm, Fla.App. 1972, 266 So. 2d 413; Melin v. Melin, Fla.App.1972, 265 So. 2d 414; § 61.14(1), Fla.Stat. We hold that the trial judge having denominated the sums to be paid initially in his final judgment of dissolution as rehabilitative…
Authorities Cited
- Oliver v. Oliver, 285 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Thoburn Stamm, Jr. v. Stamm, 266 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)