Kaufman v. Kaufman, 87-1974
| Decision Date | 11 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1974,87-1974 |
| Citation | 541 So.2d 743,14 Fla. L. Weekly 905 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 905 Barbara J. KAUFMAN, Appellant, v. James M. KAUFMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, and Paul A. Louis and Bayard E. Heath and John L. Zavertnik, Miami, for appellant.
Genet & Milner and Donald G. Criscuolo, North Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ., and SCOTT, ROBERT, Associate Judge.
In an earlier appeal of this case we directed that the judgment dissolving the marriage be amended to reserve jurisdiction "to award alimony in the future." Kaufman v. Kaufman, 491 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Subsequently Mrs. Kaufman petitioned the court to make an award of periodic alimony by a modification of the final decree. She alleged a material change in circumstances. (It is agreed that the husband has the financial ability to pay any reasonable alimony award).
In paragraph two of the order denying the petition for modification, the court attributed any reduction in Mrs. Kaufman's liquidity to litigation costs and fees, school tuition, extraordinary medical expenses, and expenditures resulting from inadequate child support (rectified in a separate order). In paragraph four it was concluded:
The Court has considered that the interest rate has dropped since the Amended Final Judgment was entered on February 15, 1985 and that the cost of living has increased during that same period of time. However, the Court finds that there has not been a substantial change in the Petitioner's needs or circumstances in light of provisions of the Amended Final Judgment for Petitioner has not depleted her capital assets for her own support needs during this time except as set forth in paragraph 2 hereinabove and therefore she has not demonstrated a need for alimony at this time.
(Emphasis added).
The law is settled that a wife is not required to deplete her capital assets in order to maintain a standard of living. Blakistone v. Blakistone, 462 So.2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); De Cenzo v. De Cenzo, 433 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Holley v. Holley, 380 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gordon v. Gordon, 204 So.2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
Accordingly, we remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to make a periodic alimony award sufficient to satisfy the demonstrated increased need. If, in the future, Barbara's assets should afford her a substantially greater income, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brock v. Brock
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (error to require former wife to deplete capital assets to maintain marital standard of living); Kaufman v. Kaufman, 541 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (error to require former wife to deplete capital assets for support before seeking modification).15 See Selembo v. Selembo......
-
Kelly v. Kelly, 5D05-177.
...is not required to deplete her capital assets to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage. See Kaufman v. Kaufman, 541 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Blakistone v. Blakistone, 462 So.2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); In re Marriage of Jones, 357 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). ......
-
Schaffer v. Schaffer
...deplete capital assets in order to [continue collecting alimony to] maintain in a certain standard of living. Kaufman v. Kaufman, 541 So. 2d 743, 744 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989); Blakistone v. Blakistone, 462 So.2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); De Cenzo v. De Cenzo, 433 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 198......
-
Batson v. Batson, 5D01-3123.
...See De Cenzo v. De Cenzo, 433 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Kaufman v. Kaufman, 541 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Was not the pension awarded to the husband a "capital asset"? Other courts have held that support obligations should be c......
-
Modification actions for an increase in periodic alimony.
...v. Schwab, 864 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2003). (3) Shafer v. Shafer, 777 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2001). (4) Kaufman v. Kaufman, 541 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (5) Bedell v. Bedell, 583 So. 2d 1005, 100607 (Fla. 1991). (6) Schlesinger v. Emmons, 566 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1990); Be......
-
Alimony for the heiress? Imputing income to assets: the important question is precisely what income, if any, should be attributed or imputed to which of the marital and nonmarital assets owned by the parties after distribution.
...Marriage of de Guigne, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 430 (2002). (4) Sinclair v. Sinclair, 594 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1992); Kaufman v. Kaufman, 541 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (5) Individual retirement account funds may be utilized penalty-free prior to age 59 [degrees] under several IRS approved ......