Ashburn v. Ashburn, 77-244
| Citation | 350 So.2d 1158 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-244,77-244 |
| Parties | Ludmila R. ASHBURN, Appellant, v. Milton S. ASHBURN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph R. Park, Clearwater, for appellant.
Jerry H. Center of Cobbey, Jendrynski & Center, Clearwater, for appellee.
Appellant/respondent, Ludmila R. Ashburn, appeals an order modifying a final judgment dissolving her marriage with appellee/petitioner, Milton S. Ashburn.
Upon review of the record, which we believe is adequate to decide the legal issue presented here, and after consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel for the respective parties, we hold that the trial court erred in light of existing Florida case law in reducing the alimony payments awarded to appellant from $400 per month to $300 per month. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage provided in pertinent part:
4. Petitioner shall pay $400.00 per month to respondent as alimony, until the respondent remarries, dies, or until there is a substantial change of circumstances, in which event the amount of alimony may be modified or, if appropriate, terminated. Alimony payments shall commence on November 1, 1975, and shall be paid on the first of each month thereafter.
6. The parties shall sell, as soon as practicable, the marital house located at 2307 Vanderbilt, Clearwater, Florida. The respondent, however, shall not be required to surrender possession of said house prior to January 1976, and any sale of said house shall be made subject to this condition. Until the respondent surrenders possession of said house, she shall pay all mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance expense on said house that accrue after the date of this final judgment. 1975 taxes shall be paid from the net proceeds of the sale of the house, before the proceeds are divided between the parties. If either party pays said taxes prior to closing, he or she shall be reimbursed from the proceeds of said sale.
The question for this court to decide is whether, as stated in the final judgment, appellee has demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances. The burden to do this was upon appellee. We think he has not carried it. From reading the provisions of the final judgment the parties were well aware, as was the trial court, that the sale of the marital home was contemplated after January 1976. In Howell v. Howell, 301 So.2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) we held that a change of circumstances, that is receipt of the proceeds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaffee v. Jaffee, 80-146
...entered. E. g., Withers v. Withers, 390 So.2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Coe v. Coe, 352 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Ashburn v. Ashburn, 350 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Howell v. Howell, 301 So.2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Waller v. Waller, 212 So.2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Tewksbury v. Tew......
-
Housman v. Housman, s. 90-2037
...(Fla. 2d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 849 (Fla.1984); O'Brien v. O'Brien, 407 So.2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Ashburn v. Ashburn, 350 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). ...
-
Lewis v. Lewis, 83-458
...to justify a modification of child support must be unanticipated, Coe v. Coe, 352 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Ashburn v. Ashburn, 350 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), and significant. Burdack v. Burdack, 371 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DC......
-
Hunt v. Hunt, 00-145
...1980); Bragdon v. Bragdon, 393 So.2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); McBride v. McBride, 352 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Ashburn v. Ashburn, 350 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Mosher v. Mosher, 321 So.2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA Where the modification results in termination of a permanent alimony award......