DAVID ROTHENBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
SHIRLEY ROTHENBERG, 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.
Former husband's petition to reduce alimony was affirmed where the trial court, following a general master's recommendation, found the ex-wife had not become self-supporting despite earning $9,000 annually as a bank employee.
A trial court does not err in reducing but not eliminating alimony where the ex-wife has improved her financial position but has not become self-supporting.
[1] A trial court does not err in reducing alimony where the ex-spouse has improved her financial position but has not become self-supporting, and the master's findings are p…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, a former husband, petitioned to reduce alimony set by a 1971 property settlement agreement and divorce judgment. A general master heard…
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 Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant here is the former husband of the appellee. He petitioned in the trial court for a reduction of the amount of alimony set by a property settlement agreement and incorporated in a final judgment of divorce entered in 1971. The matter was referred to a general master who, after the taking of extensive testimony, made an equally extensive report recommending a reduction in the amount of alimony to be paid. The circuit judge, after hearing exceptions to the report, entered a judgment adopting the findings and recommendations of the general master. We affirm upon authority of Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); and Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977).
The appellant relies for reversal principally upon the argument that the trial court failed to follow the applicable law as set forth by this court in Anderson v. Anderson, 333 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The holding in the Anderson case, under its own facts, is that “ . . . the ruling of the trial court for continuance of payment of the alimony in the face of a clear showing that the wife had become self supporting, was an error of law.” No such fact clearly appears from this record. The best that can be said here for Mrs. Rothenberg is that she has improved her position in an endeavor to become self-supporting. The finding of the general master that the wife’s salary of $9,000, as a bank employee, does not make her self-supporting arrives in this court with the presumption of correctness. See Shaw v. Shaw and Herzog v. Herzog, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keel v. Keel, 597 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…$300 in monthly payments would be insufficient to meet the needs of the former Wife. The mere fact that the former Wife is now earning an income outside the home does not eliminate her entitlement to sufficient alimony. See Rothenberg v. Rothenberg, 358 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). The record amply demonstrates that the former Wife depends on her income from employment, on the receipt of timely alimony payments, and on the amounts received monthly in Social Security payments for the benefit of the parties’…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Modesto Bisono v. State, 333 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 333 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)