Stone v. Stone

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stone v. Stone

501 So. 2d 74, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 276

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 15, 1987

DocketNo. 86-376

StatusPublished

This text of 501 So. 2d 74 (Stone v. Stone) 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

Stone v. Stone, 501 So. 2d 74, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 276 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

Because reasonable men could differ as to the amount and nature of the alimony awarded to the former wife, we find no abuse of discretion in that award and affirm. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

The husband also complains of a provision in the final judgment which reduces his obligation for alimony by 50 cents for each dollar that the wife’s net income increases over the sum of $134.00 per week. There is no corresponding provision which serves to increase the husband’s obligation should the former wife's income diminish below that figure. He points to Wilbur v. Wilbur, 399 So.2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. rev. den., 407 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1981) as authority for the proposition that automatic future increases or decreases in alimony awards are error.

We did so hold in Wilbur, but there the appellant was the party adversely affected by the provision. Here, the provision in question works to the appellant’s benefit, and the wife has not cross-appealed. Thus the former husband has no standing to raise that issue at this time. As pointed out in Wilbur, when a proper petition is presented to the trial court to either decrease or increase the alimony and a proper evidentiary showing is made, the court will be able to adjust the payments.

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

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

ORFINGER, Judge.

Because reasonable men could differ as to the amount and nature of the alimony awarded to the former wife, we find no abuse of discretion in that award and affirm. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

The husband also complains of a provision in the final judgment which reduces his obligation for alimony by 50 cents for each dollar that the wife’s net income increases over the sum of $134.00 per week. There is no corresponding provision which serves to increase the husband’s obligation should the former wife's income diminish below that figure. He points to Wilbur v. Wilbur, 399 So.2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. rev. den., 407 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1981) as authority for the proposition that automatic future increases or decreases in alimony awards are error.

We did so hold in Wilbur, but there the appellant was the party adversely affected by the provision. Here, the provision in question works to the appellant’s benefit, and the wife has not cross-appealed. Thus the former husband has no standing to raise that issue at this time. As pointed out in Wilbur, when a proper petition is presented to the trial court to either decrease or increase the alimony and a proper evidentiary showing is made, the court will be able to adjust the payments.

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 So. 2d 74, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-stone-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack