JOHN SCHNEIDER, APPELLANT,
v.
NORMA JEAN SCHNEIDER, 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 interlocutory appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order requiring discovery of information about the appellant's present wife's financial accounts and property holdings in a post-judgment alimony modification proceeding. The court held that absent evidence of fraud or scheme to avoid alimony obligations, the ex-wife's discovery requests regarding the current spouse's assets were irrelevant and violated privacy rights.
The court reversed the trial court's order, holding that discovery concerning a present spouse's income and assets is not relevant to an alimony modification action unless the ex-spouse demonstrates that the obligor terminated or reduced employment as part of a scheme to avoid alimony obligations by relying on the present spouse's income.
[1] Discovery into the financial affairs of a former spouse's current spouse is generally impermissible in a post-judgment alimony modification proceeding absent a showing th…
[2] A party seeking discovery into the financial status of a non-party must demonstrate the relevance of that information to the claims or defenses at issue.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Unless there is some showing on the part of the wife that the husband terminated or reduced his employment in order to keep from paying alimony and that he was relying upon his present wife for his living expenses in completion of the scheme, we can see no possibility of relevance concerning the present spouse's income.”
Establishes the test for relevance of present spouse's financial information in alimony modification cases—requires proof of deliberate scheme to avoid obligations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Schneider sought to terminate or reduce his alimony obligation to his ex-wife, Norma Jean Schneider, claiming reduced ability to pay and her redu…
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 Relevance In Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
For our consideration is an Interlocutory Appeal of an Order requiring discovery for a hearing seeking post judgment relief.
Appellant is seeking termination or reduction of the amount he is required to pay Appellee as alimony. He alleges he has a reduced ability to pay and his ex-wife has a reduced need. On interrogatories the wife seeks to discover the amount of any savings accounts or “commercial accounts” owned by the ex-husband’s present wife. She also seeks to discover whether or not her ex-husband’s present wife has owned any real property “during the last two years.” The Appellant objected to the questions as being irrelevant and immaterial and “an invasion of the right of privacy of the husband’s present spouse.” The court overruled the objections and ordered the Appellant to answer. We disagree with the trial court and reverse. Cited to us are Birge v. Simpson, 280 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) and Condon v. Condon, 295 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) which are rather on point but have to do with child support. Unless there is some showing on the part of the wife that the husband terminated or reduced his employment in order to keep from paying alimony and that he was relying upon his present wife for his living expenses in completion of the scheme, we can see no possibility of relevance concerning the present spouse’s income. We are aware from the answer to one of the interrogatories that the husband’s present spouse had paid some $1250 to his attorney for his services in this matter but we cannot find that to be within the definition of income.
The Order overruling objections to interrogatories is REVERSED.
CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ities bills, and other living expenses. While it is true that ordinarily the financial circumstances of an ex-husband’s present wife are not relevant in determining whether a former wife is entitled to an increase in alimony, Schneider v. Schneider, 348 So. 2d 612 (Fla.4th DCA 1977), we do not believe that it was improper for the trial judge in this case to take into consideration the fact that the husband has made arrangements with his present wife to use her separate earnings to carry [*DCCCXLV] his financi…
-
Harman v. Harman, 523 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ony has deliberately limited his or her income for the purpose of avoiding or reducing the alimony obligation, and is living off the income of the successor spouse in furtherance of the scheme to avoid the alimony obligation. Schneider v. Schneider, 348 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). In the instant case, from the record, it is unclear whether the trial court relied upon the husband’s present wife’s income in determining the husband’s ability to pay the $250.00 per month permanent alimony. We reverse the tri…
-
LAU v. LAU, 407 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…gible for support, two having reached the age of majority. . While the husband is correct that the trial court may not consider the husband’s present spouse’s income in determining the husband’s increased ability to pay, see Schneider v. Schneider, 348 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and even assuming, arguendo, the trial court did so, any error is clearly harmless, because the husband’s income alone, now more than three times greater than it was in 1971, is substantially increased. . The trial court also (…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Birge v. Simpson, 280 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Tolbert Enters., Inc. v. Sonnenblick-Goldmansoutheast Corp., 295 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Condon v. Condon, 295 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)