Friedly v. Friedly, 73--762
| Decision Date | 13 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--762,73--762 |
| Parties | Jeanine E. FRIEDLY, Appellant, v. Glenn C. FRIEDLY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stephen W. Sessums of Albritton & Sessums, Tampa, for appellant.
George W. Phillips, Tampa, for appellee.
Mrs. Friedly appeals from provisions of an order below which reduced, for the future, alimony payments payable to her by Mr. Friedly under an already reduced Connecticut decree, and which ordered that arrearages due under that decree would be payable only at the rate of $100 per month. We reverse as to both issues.
Appellant and appellee were divorced on June 23, 1965 in the State of Connecticut after a 19-year marriage. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the husband was ordered to pay Mrs. Friedly $257 per month as alimony. On June 16, 1967, the Connecticut court granted Mr. Friedly's motion for modification and reduced the alimony to $180 per month. This ruling followed a showing by Mr. Friedly that he had suffered a substantial reduction in income from the $15,400 per year he was earning in 1965. After the modification, however, Friedly moved to Florida, and prospered here; at the time of the hearing below, he was earning $20,000 a year in addition to the use of an automobile. Mrs. Friedly, on the other hand, had not sustained any substantial increase in the income from her employment at which she had worked since the divorce; her expenses had substantially increased; and she was in need of immediate medical care and surgery for which she could not pay.
Apparently, after Friedly moved to Florida he stopped making payments to his former wife upon his alimony obligation, and Mrs. Friedly, alleging her obvious need for those amounts, brought this action under F.S. §§ 88.361, 88.371 to confirm and establish the foreign support order. At the time of the hearing, Friedly was admittedly $7,290 in arrears of his alimony obligation. While it is true, as the appellee argues, that a Florida court may consider 'equitable defenses' in enforcing or confirming a foreign award, there are simply no cognizable defenses presented in the record below.
Insofar as the modification as to future payments are concerned, it is obvious that the only basis for such a modification would be a cognizable 'change of circumstances,' either in the needs of the former wife or the ability of her ex-husband to pay. In this case, there has indeed been such a change in circumstances--but the change consists...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helmick v. Helmick
...been construed to apply to alimony as well as child support. See, e.g., Thompson v. Thompson, 93 So.2d 90 (Fla.1957); Friedly v. Friedly, 303 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Appellant contends, however, that the 1979 amendment to the statute now indicates a contrary legislative intent. He refe......
-
Friedly v. Friedly
...Ed.) § 17.07. In support of its finding, the court took judicial notice of the facts and decision in the Florida case of Friedly v. Friedly, 303 So.2d 50 (Fla.App.). It appears that after the 1967 modification of the decree, the defendant moved to Florida and for a long time made no alimony......
-
Wright v. Wright
...assets. Compare Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Kast v. Kast, 351 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Friedly v. Friedly, 303 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). We urge the trial court, if it has not already done so, to make an early determination on the paternity issue, which may t......
-
Arango v. Arango, 83-427
...in determining the amount of fees to which the appellant is entitled and for which the appellee is liable. See Friedly v. Friedly, 303 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). As Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), reminds The trial courts' discretionary power was never intended to be ex......