Fourth DCA Reverses Denial of Alimony Modification

The Fourth District ruled today in Cook v. Cook, reversing the lower court’s denial of modification of alimony sought by the Former Wife.  The lower court ruled that the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement provided a modification of alimony unless custody was first modified.  The Fourth District found that the relevant clause in fact guaranteed a modification in the event of a custody change, but did not affect a modification in the absence of one.  As such, the matter was remanded.

Fourth District Discusses Alimony

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed today in Nousari v. Nousari, but first discussed the alimony award under appeal.  The Court noted that the marriage was moderate in term, the parties’ were young in age and in good health, and each party left the marriage with over a million dollars in assets.  While the Court awarded nine years of durational alimony, the Wife argued that the alimony should have been permanent in nature.  Citing Donoff v. Donoff, the Fourth District found that the lower court had acted correctly in not attributing the standard of living superfactor status, and found that all appropriate determinations were made in the lack of clear and convincing evidence requiring permanent alimony in a moderate term marriage.

Fourth District Reverses Denial of Fees

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled today in Reilly v. Reilly, in so doing reversing the lower court’s finding that the Former Wife bore sole liability for roofing expenses and the court’s ruling on fees.  Specifically as to fees, the Court found that, the Former Wife having eventually prevailed on all issues, she was entitled to recover her fees and remanded for that result.

Fourth District Affirms Denial of Modification

The Fourth District Court ruled today in Maher v. Maher, in so doing affirming the lower court’s denial of a more substantial modification of child support as requested.  The trial court relied on the fact that the child support was set by a marital settlement agreement executed by the parties, resulting in a higher than normal burden for the party seeking downward modification, and on the finding that the Former Husband’s reduction in income was neither permanent nor involuntary.

Fourth District Reverses Finding of Divestment

Among other rulings in the opinion issued today by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Walters v. Walters, that Court reversed the lower tribunal’s finding that the Former Husband had divested assets by purchasing vintage automobiles for his business.  As the Former Husband’s intent was to provide for income to pay support, the finding was in error.  In addition, the Fourth District affirmed the lower court’s denial of retroactive modification of alimony in light of the finding that the Former Husband had been able to pay the alimony during the period of time in question.  The Court also rejected the Former Husband’s claim that more than  60% of his income had been awarded in support, as they counted additional sources of income the Former Husband did not.  The lower court was reversed, however, for failing to consider the Former Wife’s current needs in its consideration of the modification petition.

First DCA Reverses Fee Award

The First District Court of Appeal ruled today in Williams v. Williams, a case in which the former husband appealed the lower tribunal’s denial of his petition for modification of alimony in part.  As there was no transcript and little other record, the First District Court affirmed the alimony ruling, but the $5,000.00 fee award was reversed for a lack of findings as to reasonable amount and hourly rate and the like.

Third District Reverses Order Denying Rehearing

The Third District Court of Appeal ruled today in Ross v. Ross, a case in which the lower tribunal denied a motion for rehearing filed by the former husband for being untimely.  The former husband appealed, and the lower court was reversed because the former husband, who is incarcerated, did in fact certify that he placed the document in the hands of prison officials in a timely fashion, which satisfies F.R.C.P. 1.530(g).  As such, the case was remanded for the lower court to consider the timely Motion for Rehearing.