JOSEPH B. SCHAEFER, APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN M. SCHAEFER, 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 District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the husband's request to modify a Nevada divorce decree that required him to pay $12,000 annually in alimony. The court held that because the husband retained the financial ability to pay the agreed-upon alimony amount, modification was not warranted.
The court affirmed the denial of modification, holding that a husband seeking to modify alimony based on an agreement freely entered into between the parties bears a heavy burden and must demonstrate financial incapacity to pay, not merely a decrease in income or net worth. Where the husband retains the ability to pay the agreed-upon amount, modification is not justified.
[1] A party seeking to modify an alimony decree must demonstrate a change in the circumstances of the parties or the financial ability of the payor spouse since the decree's…
[2] When an alimony award is based on a freely entered settlement agreement, the payor spouse bears a heavier burden to justify modification.
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 statute authorizes modification of an alimony decree only upon a clear showing that the circumstances of the parties or the financial ability of the husband have changed since the entry of the decree. Where the amount of alimony decreed is based upon an agreement freely entered into between the parties, a heavier burden rests upon the husband to justify a modification.”
Establishes the legal standard for modifying alimony based on a settlement agreement, requiring a clear showing of changed circumstances and imposing a heavier burden on the husband.
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 Nevada in 1961 pursuant to a settlement agreement requiring the husband to pay $12,000 per year in alimony. The husband b…
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 Changed Financial Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The parties to this cause were divorced in 1961 in the State of Nevada. The final decree of divorce incorporated a settlement agreement, which provided that the husband would pay $12,000.00 a year in alimony. He recently brought an action in Florida to establish the Nevada decree as the decree of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, and sought a modification of the alimony. The relief was denied, and this appeal ensued.
Although there may have been some decrease in the husband’s total net worth since the entry into of the agreement, he has had an income in excess of $50,000.00 a year for the past several years, and still has the ability to make the agreed upon alimony payments. It appears that having such ability prevents a modification of the decree for alimony. See: Fowler v. Fowler, 112 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1959), wherein the following is found:
“The statute authorizes modification of an alimony decree only upon a clear showing that the circumstances of the parties or the financial ability of the husband have changed since the entry of the decree. Where the amount of alimony decreed is based upon an agreement freely entered into between the parties, a heavier burden rests upon the husband to justify a modification. A reduction of the husband’s income on any account will not itself justify a modification in the alimony requirements of the decree. Husband’s financial incapacity to continue the payment of alimony in the amount ordered by the decree must be shown if the court is to make such order as justice and equity may require.
* * * * * *
“We fail to find in the record any evidence tending to establish that it is beyond the husband’s capacity to pay from his present resources the amount of alimony fixed in the divorce decree. Indeed, no such finding was made by the chancellor in the modification decree here assaulted. In the absence of this necessary prerequisite, it was error to order cancellation and discharge of all payments required to be made by husband under the terms of the divorce decree.”
See, also: Scott v. Scott, 285 So. 2d 423 (2nd D.C.A. 1973); also see and compare Singer v. Singer, 318 So. 2d 438 (4th D.C.A. 1975). Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order denying modification here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. Scott, 285 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Augusta L. Fowler v. Fowler, 112 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Paris G. Singer v. Singer, 318 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)