Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialmotionbankruptcydivorcealimony
appealtrialbankruptcydivorcealimony

Related Cases

Olmstead v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 32 Cal.4th 804, 86 P.3d 354, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 298, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2636, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3826
View Case »
Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J.Super. 39, 988 A.2d 1180
View Case »
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72
View Case »
McGee v. McGee, Not Reported in S.E.2d, 2007 WL 8327460
View Case »
Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker, 413 P.3d 1199
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859, 16 Fla. L. Weekly 741

Facts

The parties were divorced in 1980 after an 18-year marriage, with the wife initially receiving $1,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony, later reduced to $1,050 in January 1988. In April 1989, the husband petitioned to terminate or reduce the alimony, claiming financial difficulties and asserting that the wife, who owned two successful restaurants, no longer needed the support. The trial court granted the husband's motion, leading to the wife's appeal.

The parties were divorced in 1980 after an 18 year marriage. The wife received $1,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony, which was reduced to $1050 per month in January, 1988 upon the husband's petition for modification. In April, 1989, the husband again moved to terminate or reduce the wife's alimony asserting he no longer had the ability to pay because of the severe financial difficulties he was experiencing.

Issue

Did the trial court err in terminating the wife's permanent periodic alimony based on the husband's claim of changed financial circumstances?

1 First, we find that the trial court erred in terminating the wife's alimony because the husband made no showing that the change in his financial situation was permanent.

Rule

Modification of alimony requires a showing that the change in circumstances is sufficient, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature.

See Waldman v. Waldman, 520 So.2d 87, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA) (“Modification based upon a change of circumstances requires a showing that the change is sufficient, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature.”), review denied 531 So.2d 169 (Fla.1988) .

Analysis

The court found that the husband did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that his financial difficulties were permanent. The evidence presented, including the husband's claims of bankruptcy and the performance of his second construction company, did not meet the required standard for terminating alimony. Additionally, the court noted that relevant evidence regarding the husband's financial position was improperly excluded from the trial.

The court found that the husband did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that his financial difficulties were permanent. The evidence presented, including the husband's claims of bankruptcy and the performance of his second construction company, did not meet the required standard for terminating alimony.

Conclusion

The court reversed the trial court's order terminating alimony and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the husband to pursue his alternative request for modification.

The order terminating alimony is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Who won?

Wife prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the husband did not demonstrate a permanent change in his financial situation and that relevant evidence was improperly excluded.

The wife prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the husband did not demonstrate a permanent change in his financial situation and that relevant evidence was improperly excluded.

You must be