Fowler v. Fowler
| Decision Date | 26 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. B-14,B-14 |
| Citation | 112 So.2d 411 |
| Parties | Augusta L. FOWLER, Appellant, v. Henry T. FOWLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Allen C. Winter, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Dennis R. Dingle, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a modification decree relieving husband from making further alimony payments, and from paying premiums on insurance policies in which the wife is named as beneficiary, as required by the terms of the final divorce decree.
Appellee-husband sued appellant-wife for divorce in 1956. By mutual agreement their respective interests in specified property, both real and personal, were amicably adjusted, although the understanding was silent with respect to an interest which husband then owned in a dry cleaning business from which he derived a substantial income. The provisions of the agreement were incorporated fully in the decree granting husband a divorce, and the court did not reserve jurisdiction for any purpose.
In 1958, husband filed a petition for modification of the 1956 decree under F.S. Section 65.15, F.S.A., alleging that his financial circumstances had so changed that he could no longer meet the alimony requirements of the decree without working a great hardship on himself. The petition avers that it was from the anticipated income to be realized from the dry cleaning business that he expected to pay the alimony as agreed, and inasmuch as he was forced to sell this business, he prays that the final decree be modified by reducing the sum of alimony to be paid wife by such amount as may be considered equitable.
Wife filed an answer denying the material allegations of the petition and incorporated a cross petition alleging that since the decree of divorce, both her health and earning capacity have become seriously impaired and thus, she is in need of greater financial assistance from husband. Accordingly, she prayed that the alimony provision of the decree be modified by increasing the amount in such sum as may be deemed equitable.
Testimony was taken before the chancellor who entered a modification decree containing his findings and conclusions, towit: (1) at the time the final decree was entered husband was earning eighty-eight dollars weekly salary and enjoyed an annual income from his interest in the dry cleaning business of $3,500, while wife earned a monthly income of $300 as a registered nurse; (2) it was contemplated by the parties that the alimony and insurance requirements of the decree were to be discharged by husband from anticipated income accruing from husband's interest in the dry cleaning business; (3) through the invidious and vindictive action of wife and her brother, husband was forced to sell his interest in the dry cleaning business for a price of $8,000, the income previously realized from that source being thereby discontinued; and (4) that because of wife's action in causing a reduction in husband's income, it would be inequitable to require him to pay any further sums for which he is obligated under the final decree, but that it would be equitable to require division between the parties of the balance of the purchase price to be received in subsequent installments by husband from the sale of the mentioned business.
Based upon the foregoing findings it was ordered that all payments required to be made by husband under the terms of the final decree are cancelled and discharged, and further ordered that husband pay to wife one half of all future sums as and when received by him from the sale of the dry cleaning business.
On appeal from the modification decree wife has assigned a number of errors. We will consider only those deemed to be necessary for a disposition of this appeal. Appellant contends that since the final decree of divorce contained no reservation of jurisdiction, the chancellor was without authority to entertain husband's petition for modification brought in the same suit under F.S. Sec. 65.15, F.S.A. This contention must be resolved against appellant. Jurisdiction to consider petitions for modification of any agreement, order, or decree provided for payment by a husband to his wife of separate support, maintenance or alimony, is expressly conferred by the statute. 1 The reservation of jurisdiction in a final decree of divorce is important in determining whether the petition for modification constitutes a new suit requiring service of process on respondent, or whether it constitutes but a supplemental step in the original action wherein actual notice to the respondent is sufficient. 2 The former situation is the case here, but respondent wife having voluntarily answered the petition for modification...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiedman v. Wiedman
...DCA 1982); Freeland v. Purcifull, 347 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Scott v. Scott, 285 So.2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Fowler v. Fowler, 112 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).2 See Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So.2d 66 (Fla.1954); Landry v. Landry, 436 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).3 Compare Greene ......
-
Ohmes v. Ohmes
...as to reservation of jurisdiction in the decree sought to be modified. Kosch v. Kosch, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 547; Fowler v. Fowler, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 411; Schraner v. Schraner, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 33. It is elementary in Florida law that the provisions of all Florida statutes touchi......
-
Galligher v. Galligher, 87-843
...DCA 1973); Knight v. Knight, 205 So.2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Bagley v. Bagley, 182 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Fowler v. Fowler, 112 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).3 Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Bess v. Bess, 471 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. dism. 476 So.2d ......
-
Bernstein v. Bernstein, 85-1134
...is based upon agreement a heavier burden rests upon a party seeking a modification than would otherwise be required. Fowler v. Fowler, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 411; Nixon v. Nixon, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 263; and Ohmes v. Ohmes, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 849." 285 So.2d at 424-25 (emphasis ad......