Millan v. Millan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Millan v. Millan

241 So. 3d 913

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 2018

DocketCase No. 2D16–2467

StatusPublished

This text of 241 So. 3d 913 (Millan v. Millan) 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

Millan v. Millan, 241 So. 3d 913 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

In this appeal and cross-appeal from the final order in these postdissolution modification and contempt proceedings, we affirm in all respects save one. During the parties' long-term marriage, the former wife suffered a stroke from which she suffers a permanent impairment and ongoing health issues that significantly hinder her ability to maintain employment. In light of the former wife's severely diminished financial capability-which is exacerbated by the ordered reduction in her ongoing alimony income-the circuit court abused its discretion by giving retroactive effect to *914the alimony modification so as to charge her with an obligation resulting from past overpayments by the former husband. See Gurdian v. Gurdian, 198 So.3d 65, 68-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Insofar as the order modifies the former husband's alimony obligation retroactively, it is reversed. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

In this appeal and cross-appeal from the final order in these postdissolution modification and contempt proceedings, we affirm in all respects save one. During the parties' long-term marriage, the former wife suffered a stroke from which she suffers a permanent impairment and ongoing health issues that significantly hinder her ability to maintain employment. In light of the former wife's severely diminished financial capability-which is exacerbated by the ordered reduction in her ongoing alimony income-the circuit court abused its discretion by giving retroactive effect to *914the alimony modification so as to charge her with an obligation resulting from past overpayments by the former husband. See Gurdian v. Gurdian, 198 So.3d 65, 68-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Insofar as the order modifies the former husband's alimony obligation retroactively, it is reversed. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 So. 3d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millan-v-millan-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack