Higgins v. Higgins, AC-480
| Decision Date | 12 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AC-480,AC-480 |
| Citation | 408 So.2d 731 |
| Parties | Thomas G. HIGGINS, Appellant, v. Anne E. HIGGINS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William D. Barrow, Law Offices of Barrow & Holley, Crestview, for appellant.
Charles J. Kahn, Jr., Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie & Magie, P. A., Pensacola, for appellee.
In 1976, Thomas, a Navy captain, and Anne were divorced following a 20 year marriage. The judgment awarded her $1,000 monthly alimony, possession of a home in New Jersey, custody and child support. It divided responsibility for the bills. After a history of noncompliance resulted in a garnishment of his pension, Thomas petitioned for a reduction in alimony, alleging that Anne was better able to support herself and that he was less able to support himself. The day before the hearing below Thomas deeded his share of the marital home to Anne in satisfaction of over $43,000 in alimony arrearages. The trial court found a substantial change in circumstances and made a new alimony award of $800 monthly. We affirm.
Two issues which are raised on appeal require discussion. First the propriety of considering a military pension as an asset for purposes of alimony after McCarty v. McCarty, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), and second the correctness of the award under the standard of need and ability as expressed in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
In the well publicized McCarty case the U.S. Supreme Court held that a military pension was not community property subject to distribution by a state divorce court. The court did not hold that a pension was an asset which could not be drawn on to provide support for the ex-spouse and children. Indeed, as noted in McCarty, Congress has provided for the garnishment of military wages and pensions for just such support, 42 U.S.C. §§ 659, 662. It is clear that the needs of national defense, as seen by Congress, do not require state courts to avoid all use of military pensions in support cases. The McCarty ruling does not prohibit a state divorce court from considering military pensions in support proceedings.
The primary purpose of permanent periodic alimony is "to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties." Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1201. Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide support within the meaning of McCarty, so there is no violation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bassett v. Bassett
-
Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer
...decisions in which the court has done just that. See, e.g., Marshall v. Marshall, 445 So.2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Higgins v. Higgins, 408 So.2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 417 So.2d 329 (Fla.1982); Bradley v. Bradley, 385 So.2d 101 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 392 So.2d 1392 (Fl......
-
Hartzell v. Hartzell, 82-2045
...DCA 1982); Cullen v. Cullen, 413 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Higgins v. Higgins, 408 So.2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 417 So.2d 329 (Fla.1982); Bradley v. Bradley, 385 So.2d 101 (Fla. 5th DCA However, on June 26, 1981,......
-
Repash v. Repash
...involve alimony or maintenance obligations. See Cullen v. Cullen, 413 So.2d 1196, 1198 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982); Higgins v. Higgins, 408 So.2d 731, 732 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). Plaintiff next relies upon 10 U.S.C. § 1408. The Uniform Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. ......