Brown v. Brown, 76--274
| Decision Date | 03 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--274,76--274 |
| Citation | 338 So.2d 916 |
| Parties | Virginia Ellen BROWN, Appellant, v. John Edward BROWN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Clara J. Cafaro of Martin J. Jones, P.A., Lance Andrews, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Martin E. Rice of Harris, Clark, Green & Piper, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for modification of a judgment of dissolution on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
In the final judgment of dissolution, the wife was awarded temporary alimony of $75 per week until further order of the court. The judgment also included the following provision:
In August of 1974 the husband filed a motion to modify the judgment by eliminating the provision for alimony. As a basis for his motion, the husband asserted that the wife had reached maximum medical improvement, had settled her personal injury claim and no longer needed alimony. Following a hearing, the court entered an order stating that the temporary alimony payments should continue until October 18, 1975, 'at which time they shall terminate.'
On June 25, 1975, the court entered an order adjudging the husband to be in contempt for failing to pay alimony payments which were then in arrears by $1,200. The court sentenced the husband to jail but suspended the sentence providing the husband 'pays to the Petitioner VIRGINIA ELLEN BROWN, the sum of $100.00 per week, twenty-five Dollars of which is to be applied to the $1,200.00 arrearage and providing further that he continues to make said payments until the arrearage of $1,200.00 has been satisfied.' On January 16, 1976, the wife filed a motion for order of contempt for failure to comply with the June 25, 1975, order and a petition for modification of final judgment asserting that she was totally disabled and unable to support herself without alimony and seeking an order requiring the husband to pay her alimony of $75 per week. The court entered an order granting the husband's motion to dismiss the petition for modification for the following reasons stated therein:
Where there is no provision for alimony in a judgment of dissolution and no reservation of jurisdiction for this purpose, the court is without jurisdiction to later entertain a petition for alimony. Weiss v. Weiss, 118 So.2d 833 (Fla.3d DCA 1960). On the other hand, even if the final judgment does not contain a provision for alimony, jurisdiction may properly be reserved to consider a petition for alimony at a later date. Poe v. Poe, 263 So.2d 644 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Where permanent alimony is awarded, the court is always open to hear a petition for modification. Kosch v. Kosch, 113 So.2d 547 (Fla.1959). However, if alimony is provided for a terminable period, as in the case of rehabilitative alimony, once the alimony has been paid pursuant to the order, the court no longer has jurisdiction to award additional alimony. Elkins v. Elkins, 287 So.2d 119 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); See Lee v. Lee, 309 So.2d 26 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).
Applying the foregoing principles to this case, we find that the original judgment of dissolution not only ordered alimony but retained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siragusa v. Siragusa
...alimony term, modification of the alimony award is proper after the expiration of the original alimony term. Brown v. Brown, 338 So.2d 916, 918-19 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976). The Brown court A spouse who is behind in the payment of alimony can hardly be heard to complain that his wilful failure......
-
Turner v. Turner
...of jurisdiction is made for that purpose, no jurisdiction exists for subsequently entertaining a petition for alimony. Brown v. Brown, 338 So.2d 916 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Poe v. Poe, 263 So.2d 644 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). In Hostler v. Hostler, 151 So.2d 672 (Fla.1st DCA 1963), the court determined ......
-
Kelsey v. Kelsey, 93-0988
...prematurely request modification of rehabilitative alimony. Accordingly, we recede from the language in Lee and Brown [Brown v. Brown, 338 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976),] which suggests that the trial court may lack jurisdiction to modify rehabilitative during the term of Id. at 41. We agree......
-
Ryan v. Ryan, AM-322
...3d DCA 1973), unlike here, the trial courts never reserved jurisdiction to award permanent alimony in the future. In Brown v. Brown, 338 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), the trial judge retained jurisdiction for further consideration of alimony when the wife reached maximum medical improvement......