BEATRICE WEBBER
v.
JOHN H. WEBBER
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 a husband's remarriage and increased living costs are insufficient grounds to modify a prior alimony decree that incorporated a settlement agreement.
A divorced husband sought to modify his alimony payments, citing his remarriage and increased financial obligations. The original divorce decree incor…
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 Divorce Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
We are called upon to consider a petition for certiorari under Rule 34 seeking to review an order which modified a decree of divorce insofar as it required the payment of monthly sums to this petitioner.
Respondent, who is the divorced husband of petitioner, filed his petition for modification pursuant to Sec. 65.15 F.S. 1941, F.S.A. Answer was filed and after testimony was taken the monthly payments were reduced.
The original decree of divorce incorporated an agreement of the parties which presumably set at rest all questions of every nature and solemnly fixed the sums to be paid petitioner at $85.00 per month. The petition to modify the decree in respect to the monthly payments was grounded on the proposition that he had subsequently remarried; that he had financial requirements, viz.: withholding tax, war bond purchases, interest on real estate mortgages, pension and insurance premiums.
The petition also revealed an increase in salary. Most of the items mentioned are assets rather than liabilities to petitioner. The question narrows down to whether relief should be afforded because of increased living cost and added burdens of supporting another wife.
In Phillippi v. Phillippi, 148 Fla. 393, 4 So. 2nd 465, we held the remarriage of a man would not afford him a ground to be relieved of an alimony decree. See also DeBowes v. DeBowes, 152 Fla. 423, 12 So. 2nd 118.
Where the parties have, by mutual agreement, settled their differences by compromise and the court has ratified the same in the final decree a strong showing is required to modify the terms thereof.
Certiorari is granted and the order is quashed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isabel M. Cowen (Papert) v. Cowen, 95 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1957)…mpetent evidence, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion or overreaching on the part of Raymond F. Miller when obtaining an alimony settlement with her.” To the same effect is Adler v. Becker, 130 Fla. 330, 178 So. 117, and Webber v. Webber, 156 Fla. 396, 23 So. 2d 388. This case was heard before the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the rule is too well established to require the citation of authorities that where the evidence is heard by the Chancellor and the witnesses…
-
Cohn v. Mann, 38 So.2d 465 (Fla. 1949)…31 So. 2d 162. "Where the parties have, by mutual agreement, settled their differences by compromise and the court has ratified the same in the final decree, a strong showing is required to modify the terms thereof." Webber v. Webber, 156 Fla. 396, 23 So. 2d 388. "When a property settlement provides for an agreed sum or sums to be paid the wife in lieu of her right to participate in her husband's property, it will take a very strong case even in view of Chapter 16780 to modify it." Vance v. Vance, 143 Fla.…
-
Knight v. Knight, 205 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…to changed circumstances and the financial ability of the husband to pay.’1 Other cases setting out this same principle are: Schiff v. Schiff, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 36; Cohn v. Mann, Fla.1949, 38 So. 2d 465; and Webber v. Webber, 1945, 156 Fla. 396, 23 So. 2d 388. >{; ‡ * % Jfc ‡ The record shows no evidence that the ability of the husband to pay has changed except for a statement by the husband that at the present time he could not pay $75.00 per week. This is not justification for a modification of an al…
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
- Phillippi v. Phillippi, 148 Fla. 393 (Fla. 1941)
- Debowes v. Debowes, 152 Fla. 423 (Fla. 1943)