Williams v. Williams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Williams v. Williams

212 So. 2d 778, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5343

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 1968

DocketNo. 67-524

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 So. 2d 778 (Williams v. Williams) 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

Williams v. Williams, 212 So. 2d 778, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5343 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinions

MANN, Judge.

The parties were divorced in 1963. The Chancellor awarded appellant wife an allowance for the support of the children and $50.00 per week alimony for eight weeks and $25.00 per week thereafter. In 1967 appellee filed a petition for modification of the final decree, asserting “circumstances have drastically changed.’’ The parties have been represented by a succession of attorneys over the years and it is understandable that the learned chancellor who granted the petition for modification by eliminating alimony entirely had forgotten, but the record shows, his contemplation at the time of the final decree that the wife would soon thereafter seek employment. The chancellor’s order of September 1, 1967, recites that appellant “is employed earning an average of at least $60.00 per week take-home pay.” The record does not permit us to determine the exact amount of her income or whether it exceeds that contemplated at the time of entry of the final decree. The appellee’s acquisition of a new family is immaterial, Schiff v. Schiff, 54 So.2d 36 (Fla.1951). He has shown no inability to make the payments, Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, 178 So.2d 346 (2d D.C.A. Fla.1965), Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So.2d 66 (Fla.1954). The husband’s income has not diminished. It has, in fact, increased.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.

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

MANN, Judge.

The parties were divorced in 1963. The Chancellor awarded appellant wife an allowance for the support of the children and $50.00 per week alimony for eight weeks and $25.00 per week thereafter. In 1967 appellee filed a petition for modification of the final decree, asserting “circumstances have drastically changed.’’ The parties have been represented by a succession of attorneys over the years and it is understandable that the learned chancellor who granted the petition for modification by eliminating alimony entirely had forgotten, but the record shows, his contemplation at the time of the final decree that the wife would soon thereafter seek employment. The chancellor’s order of September 1, 1967, recites that appellant “is employed earning an average of at least $60.00 per week take-home pay.” The record does not permit us to determine the exact amount of her income or whether it exceeds that contemplated at the time of entry of the final decree. The appellee’s acquisition of a new family is immaterial, Schiff v. Schiff, 54 So.2d 36 (Fla.1951). He has shown no inability to make the payments, Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, 178 So.2d 346 (2d D.C.A. Fla.1965), Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So.2d 66 (Fla.1954). The husband’s income has not diminished. It has, in fact, increased.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 So. 2d 778, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-williams-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack