EDITH STEINAU, APPELLANT,
v.
LESLIE STEINAU, JR., 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 alimony modification case, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's complete termination of alimony payments, holding that while trial courts have broad discretion in modification proceedings, a modest increase in the wife's earnings ($140 monthly) was insufficient to justify complete elimination of alimony.
The trial court abused its discretion in completely terminating alimony payments; while some modification may be justified by the increased earnings, complete termination was not. The retroactive effective date to the filing of the counterclaim was proper.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in modifying alimony orders, and its rulings will generally not be disturbed on appeal.
[2] A petition for modification of alimony does not authorize a trial court to retry the original issue of alimony.
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“The trial court has broad discretion in matters of this nature and ordinarily his rulings will not be disturbed.”
Establishes the general deference given to trial court decisions in alimony matters
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 were divorced in New York in 1970, with the wife awarded $200 weekly alimony. In 1972, the alimony was reduced to $125 weekly by stipulati…
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 Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
[*632] ANSTEAD, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order modifying the terms of a New York decree for alimony. The parties were divorced in New York and the wife awarded alimony of $200.00 weekly on November 18, 1970. Thereafter the husband petitioned for modification and based upon the parties’ stipulation on that petition the court reduced the alimony to $125.00 weekly by an order of June 19, 1972. After the wife initiated proceedings in Florida against the husband to recover arrearages in alimony the husband filed a counter-claim for modification seeking to modify the order of June 19, 1972. Upon trial, the trial court granted the husband’s petition and ordered the termination of alimony payments retroactive to the date of the filing of the husband’s counterclaim. The wife now appeals asserting that the trial court erred in terminating alimony and in making the termination retroactive.
The trial court has broad discretion in matters of this nature and ordinarily his rulings will not be disturbed. Nixon v. Nixon, 200 So. 2d 263 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). However, we conclude under the circumstances of this case that the trial court abused his discretion in completely terminating alimony payments to the wife.
Essentially the husband sought modification in the trial court on the same grounds as he sought modification in New York in 1972. A careful examination of the record reveals that the only material change in circumstances shown during the course of the trial was an increase in the wife’s earnings by the amount of $140.00 monthly. While this may justify some modification it is far from sufficient to justify a complete termination of alimony. A petition for modification does not authorize the trial court to retry the issue of alimony. The issue before the trial court is whether there has been such a substantial change in circumstances since the time of the previous decree to merit modification and if so what modification is warranted by the changed circumstances.
We find no error in the trial court’s order making a modification retroactive to the time of the filing of the husband’s counterclaim.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order is hereby vacated and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ALDERMAN and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benson v. Seymour Benson, 369 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…other point with merit' concerns the actions of the trial judge in forgiving accrued periodic support. This too was error. A court can only modify support payments prospectively from the time a petition for modification is filed. Steinau v. Steinau, 343 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The cross-appeal is determined to be without merit. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH. DOWNEY, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur. . There is no suggestion of proof to justify cancellat…
-
Shufflebarger v. Harry L. Shufflebarger, M.D., 460 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…e conclude that it was error for the trial court to deny the increase in child support for J.S. from the date the petition was filed until the date she reached her majority. Fotorny v. Fotorny, 397 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Steinau v. Steinau, 343 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Second, a court may order a noncustodial parent to maintain life insurance for the benefit of his minor child. Hinebaugh v. Hinebaugh, 403 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for rev. dismissed, 408 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1981); Eagan v…
-
Fotorny v. Fotorny, 397 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…oactive to the date of filing her petition for modification. The record supports the trial court’s finding of a substantial change of circumstances warranting the increase in alimony and we affirm that portion of the order. See, Steinau v. Steinau, 343 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The trial court erred, however, by not making the support payments retroactive to the date of filing the petition for modification. Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Buckley v. Buckley, 343 So. 2d 890 (Fl…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nixon v. Nixon, 200 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)