Coe v. Coe, 76-1850
| Decision Date | 30 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1850,76-1850 |
| Citation | 352 So.2d 559 |
| Parties | Ida A. Felicione COE, Appellant, v. Harry Lee COE, III, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William J. Castagna of MacKenzie, Castagna, Bennison & Gardner, Clearwater, for appellant.
Sondra Goldenfarb, Joseph G. Donahey, Jr., Clearwater, for appellee.
Wife appeals an order reducing alimony and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support modification of the final judgment entered on the parties' dissolution agreement. We agree and reverse the order of modification.
Wife filed for dissolution of marriage in the spring of 1973. The parties entered into a dissolution agreement which provided: that wife retain custody of the only child of the marriage, for the visitation rights of the husband, for child support, for property division, and for alimony. That portion of the agreement concerning alimony directed:
Approximately two years later, husband filed a petition for modification of that portion of the final judgment. The part of the petition which concerns us here sought termination of alimony because the child had entered school and wife was now available to resume employment as a teacher. Wife had ten years of teaching experience but had not worked since before the birth of the child. Husband's position at hearing on the petition was that termination of alimony was proper 1) because the understanding of the parties at the time of the agreement was that alimony would terminate once wife was available for work, and 2) because wife's availability for work, coupled with husband's financial burdens, constituted a substantial change of circumstances.
Husband has failed to prove that the agreement envisioned termination of alimony once the child entered school. There is no indication of such an intent from the face of the agreement. The parol evidence admitted concerning this understanding was the testimony of the parties. Husband testified that he didn't "recall any conversation on this line one way or the other" at the time of agreement. On the contrary, wife's testimony emphasized that at the time of agreement, she expected to receive alimony in the amount specified in the agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galligher v. Galligher, 87-843
...393 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Johnson v. Johnson, 386 So.2d 14 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den. 392 So.2d 1375 (Fla.1980); Coe v. Coe, 352 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Hagen v. Hagen, 308 So.2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Howell v. Howell, 301 So.2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Scott v. Scott, 285 So.2d......
-
Jaffee v. Jaffee, 80-146
...when the original judgment or agreement was 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......
-
Johnson v. Johnson, MM-191
...See Turner v. Turner, 383 So.2d 700, (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).3 Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, 307 So.2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Coe v. Coe, 352 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Hagen v. Hagen, 308 So.2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).4 The poverty level in 1978 for a woman living in the city was $3,190. Newspaper E......
-
Rosen v. Rosen, 87-843
...Specifically, the wife's employability was known at the time of the previous award and, thus, could not be considered. Coe v. Coe, 352 So.2d 559, 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Howell v. Howell, 301 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 2d DCA However, the evidence of the paternal gift, which generates interest in......