Berryman v. Berryman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Berryman v. Berryman

417 So. 2d 1087, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20897

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1760

StatusPublished

This text of 417 So. 2d 1087 (Berryman v. Berryman) 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

Berryman v. Berryman, 417 So. 2d 1087, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20897 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-husband seeks review of an order denying a motion to terminate alimony payments to his former wife.

The parties were married in 1945. At the time of the 1970 divorce, the husband was earning $18,000.00 annually. The property settlement agreement gave the wife the marital residence in fee simple as well as support for two minor children and alimony payments. Subsequently, the wife found employment while the appellant was forced to take early retirement by his employer, Pan American Airlines. The court reduced his alimony and support payments in 1977 from $360.00 per month to $260.00, one child still being a minor. The evidence shows that appellant was living on a modest pension and selling his assets in order to meet these alimony and support payments. In 1979, after the last child became emancipated, the court terminated the support obligation but found the wife still needed $200.00 per month. Husband appealed.

On these facts where the assets and earning capacity of the former husband have substantially diminished while, at the same time, the former wife has become self-supporting to the point of now being in a better financial position than appellant, it was an abuse of discretion not to terminate the husband’s alimony obligations. Vilas v. Vilas, 153 Fla. 102, 13 So.2d 807 (Fla.1943); Goldin v. Goldin, 346 So.2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Anderson v. Anderson, 333 So.2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-husband seeks review of an order denying a motion to terminate alimony payments to his former wife.

The parties were married in 1945. At the time of the 1970 divorce, the husband was earning $18,000.00 annually. The property settlement agreement gave the wife the marital residence in fee simple as well as support for two minor children and alimony payments. Subsequently, the wife found employment while the appellant was forced to take early retirement by his employer, Pan American Airlines. The court reduced his alimony and support payments in 1977 from $360.00 per month to $260.00, one child still being a minor. The evidence shows that appellant was living on a modest pension and selling his assets in order to meet these alimony and support payments. In 1979, after the last child became emancipated, the court terminated the support obligation but found the wife still needed $200.00 per month. Husband appealed.

On these facts where the assets and earning capacity of the former husband have substantially diminished while, at the same time, the former wife has become self-supporting to the point of now being in a better financial position than appellant, it was an abuse of discretion not to terminate the husband’s alimony obligations. Vilas v. Vilas, 153 Fla. 102, 13 So.2d 807 (Fla.1943); Goldin v. Goldin, 346 So.2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Anderson v. Anderson, 333 So.2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 So. 2d 1087, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berryman-v-berryman-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack