Holli Poe Dennis, Former Wife v. Michael Dennis, Former Husband

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holli Poe Dennis, Former Wife v. Michael Dennis, Former Husband

223 So. 3d 480, 2017 WL 3360996, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11400

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-3929

StatusPublished

This text of 223 So. 3d 480 (Holli Poe Dennis, Former Wife v. Michael Dennis, Former Husband) 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

Holli Poe Dennis, Former Wife v. Michael Dennis, Former Husband, 223 So. 3d 480, 2017 WL 3360996, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11400 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Former Wife, Holli Poe Dennis, appeals a final order terminating her entitlement to alimony, arguing that the trial court failed to support, its decision with adequate factual findings. We affirm without discussion the termination of the alimony obligation.

Former Husband, Michael Dennis, cross-appeals the. final order,, arguing that the trial court should have retroactively applied the termination of his obligation to pay alimony. A trial court has the discretion to modify alimony effective from the date the petition for modification was filed or any date subsequent to the filing of the petition. Acosta v. Renta, 84 So.3d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). “Retroac-tivity is the rule rather than the exception which guides the trial court’s application of discretion when modification of alimony or child support is granted,” DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “Accordingly, there is a presumption of retroactivity which applies unless there is a basis for determining that the award should not be retroactive.” Thyrre v. Thyrre, 963 So.2d 859, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Here, Former Wife’s need for alimony ceased when she began receiving payments from Former Husband’s military pension. The trial court presented no reason for denying the request for retroactive application, and the record does not provide a basis to support the court’s denial of the request. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to make the termination of alimony retroactive to the date Former Wife began receiving a portion of Former Husband’s military benefits.

We affirm the trial court’s termination of alimony, but we reverse for the trial court to order the reduction retroactive to the date Former Wife began receiving payments from Former Husband’s pension.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

WOLF, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., • CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Former Wife, Holli Poe Dennis, appeals a final order terminating her entitlement to alimony, arguing that the trial court failed to support, its decision with adequate factual findings. We affirm without discussion the termination of the alimony obligation.

Former Husband, Michael Dennis, cross-appeals the. final order,, arguing that the trial court should have retroactively applied the termination of his obligation to pay alimony. A trial court has the discretion to modify alimony effective from the date the petition for modification was filed or any date subsequent to the filing of the petition. Acosta v. Renta, 84 So.3d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). “Retroac-tivity is the rule rather than the exception which guides the trial court’s application of discretion when modification of alimony or child support is granted,” DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “Accordingly, there is a presumption of retroactivity which applies unless there is a basis for determining that the award should not be retroactive.” Thyrre v. Thyrre, 963 So.2d 859, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Here, Former Wife’s need for alimony ceased when she began receiving payments from Former Husband’s military pension. The trial court presented no reason for denying the request for retroactive application, and the record does not provide a basis to support the court’s denial of the request. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to make the termination of alimony retroactive to the date Former Wife began receiving a portion of Former Husband’s military benefits.

We affirm the trial court’s termination of alimony, but we reverse for the trial court to order the reduction retroactive to the date Former Wife began receiving payments from Former Husband’s pension.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

WOLF, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., • CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 So. 3d 480, 2017 WL 3360996, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holli-poe-dennis-former-wife-v-michael-dennis-former-husband-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack