Irwin v. Irwin
| Decision Date | 16 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1316,88-1316 |
| Citation | 539 So.2d 1177,14 Fla. L. Weekly 693 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 693 Ronald L. IRWIN, Appellant, v. Corrine IRWIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Appleton, Orlando, for appellant.
J. Cheney Mason, Orlando, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a modification order increasing the former husband's alimony obligation from $400.00 per month to $2,500.00 per month, based upon a finding by the trial court that the evidence established a substantial change in the former husband's ability to pay and in the former wife's need for support.
The parties, Ronald and Corrine Irwin, were married from 1962 to 1973. At the time of divorce, there were two minor children, and the wife was 31 years old. Pursuant to agreement, she received $400.00 permanent alimony, which was temporarily increased by agreement in 1981 to $575.00. The increase terminated automatically in June, 1987, when the younger child reached majority. At that time Corrine Irwin filed a petition for modification. At the time of hearing she had an annual salary of some $8,200.00 in addition to the $400.00 monthly alimony and miscellaneous income from citrus stock dividends, averaging $1,350.00 per year. Her financial affidavit claimed a monthly deficit of approximately $1,000.00 per month.
Ronald Irwin argues on appeal that the trial court erred as a matter of law in that the increase in alimony was predicated, at least in part, upon an increase in the former husband's ability to pay rather than upon any increase in the former wife's need as originally established by the parties' standard of living during marriage. See Waldbaum v. Waldbaum, 520 So.2d 87, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 531 So.2d 169 (Fla.1988); O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). It is undisputed that Irwin has become a wealthy man since the dissolution. However, in a petition for modification the recipient's need is the sine qua non of the determination; unless and until it is established that there has been a substantial increase in need, ability to pay must not be considered. Once that need is established, the question is whether or not the husband has the ability to meet that increased need, in whole or in part. To hold otherwise improperly grants the alimony recipient a continuing interest in the former spouse's good fortune. See Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So.2d 614, 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). It is clear from the record in this case, and from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Wright
...entitled, however, to benefit from any enhanced ability to pay acquired by the former husband since dissolution. See Irwin v. Irwin, 539 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So.2d 614, 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); cf. Stebbins v. Stebbins, 435 So.2d 383, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1......
-
Bedell v. Bedell
...continuing interest in the former spouse's good fortune. There are several other decisions that support this rationale. Irwin v. Irwin, 539 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Bess v. Bess, 471 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 476 So.2d 672 (Fla.1985), review denied, 482 So.2d 347 (Fla.1986......
-
Bedell v. Bedell, 87-98
...hold otherwise improperly grants the alimony recipient a continuing interest in the former spouse's good fortune." Irwin v. Irwin, 539 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In accord with this rule, this court has held that where the financial needs of the recipient spouse, as established b......
-
Arce v. Arce
...support payments, absent showing of increased need by other spouse), rev. denied, 531 So.2d 169 (Fla.1988); Irwin v. Irwin, 539 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (in petition for modification, "the recipient's need is the sine qua non of the determination.... To hold otherwise improperly......
-
Modification actions for an increase in periodic alimony.
...So. 2d at 1007 (Fla. 1991). (7) Bedell, 583 So. 2d at 1007; Shafer v. Shafer, 777 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2001). (8) Irwin v. Irwin, 539 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1989), approved by the Supreme Court in Bedell, but with the additional requirement that either an increased need as show......
-
Mathematics for imputing income.
...2d 1211, 1214 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1995). (9) This is because lifestyle need must be based on the marital standard of need. Irwin v. Irwin, 539 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1989); Walton v. Walton, 557 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1989); Szuri v. Szuri, 759 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (10) McLean ......