Benton v. Benton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Benton v. Benton

813 So. 2d 1074, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5183, 2002 WL 662157

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 2002

DocketNo. 2D00-3110

StatusPublished

This text of 813 So. 2d 1074 (Benton v. Benton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benton v. Benton, 813 So. 2d 1074, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5183, 2002 WL 662157 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Carlton L. Benton, the former husband, appeals an order denying his petition to reduce his permanent alimony obligation to Vicki L. Benton, the former wife. Although the trial court’s findings of fact establish that the relative financial situations of the parties have substantially changed since the entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in deciding that the changes in circumstances do not currently warrant a decrease in the permanent alimony obligation.¹ This holding is without prejudice to the former husband again seeking a reduction in his alimony obligation should the former wife become reemployed or should circumstances develop which make her continued unemployment unreasonable.

Affirmed.

PARKER and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Carlton L. Benton, the former husband, appeals an order denying his petition to reduce his permanent alimony obligation to Vicki L. Benton, the former wife. Although the trial court’s findings of fact establish that the relative financial situations of the parties have substantially changed since the entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in deciding that the changes in circumstances do not currently warrant a decrease in the permanent alimony obligation.¹ This holding is without prejudice to the former husband again seeking a reduction in his alimony obligation should the former wife become reemployed or should circumstances develop which make her continued unemployment unreasonable.

Affirmed.

PARKER and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

813 So. 2d 1074, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5183, 2002 WL 662157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-v-benton-fladistctapp-2002.