Mansfield v. Mansfield, 74-1636

Decision Date25 March 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74-1636,74-1636
Citation309 So.2d 629
PartiesPerry R. MANSFIELD, Appellant, v. Josephine MANSFIELD, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Seymour London, Miami, for appellant.

W. Thomas Spencer, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The question presented on this interlocutory appeal is whether the petitioner and former wife established a change of circumstances such as to entitle her to a modification of the amount of alimony. See Rogers v. Rogers, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 618; Tewksbury v. Tweksbury, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 346; Howell v. Howell, Fla.App.1974, 301 So.2d 781. The alimony provided in the final judgment had been set by the court after final judgment in accordance with a provision for modification upon appellant-husband's retirement. Approximately a little over one year later, a petition to modify the order was filed by the wife. An order was entered after extensive hearings before the court.

The husband argues that inasmuch as the wife showed no increased need and the husband was in fact of a lesser net worth at the time of the hearings on the petition that the court abused its discretion in increasing the wife's alimony $1,000 per year. The record before us reveals that the husband, although retire, took additional employment at which he earned some $10,000. In our view, this fact alone shows that the appellant had a greater earning capacity than that indicated at the time of his retirement. Appellant points out that the position was terminated by his resignation after one year and, therefore, should not be considered permanent. While the increase in earnings above that anticipated at the time of the entry of the order of modification after the husband retired may be temporary, it does indicate a change in circumstances to the extent that it shows the former husband had an ability to earn if he so desired. Under these circumstances, the small amount of increase is justified. See King v. King, Fla.App.1973, 271 So.2d 159.

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Desilets v. Desilets
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1979
    ...the income so imputed. Fried v. Fried, 375 So.2d 46 (DCA 1979); Bradley v. Bradley, 347 So.2d 789 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Mansfield v. Mansfield, 309 So.2d 629 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Foster v. Foster, 537 S.W.2d 833 (Mo.Ct.App.1976); Faye v. Faye, 131 Misc. 388, 226 N.Y.S. 729 (Sup.Ct.1928); Annot.,......
  • Ward v. Ward
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 1987
    ...2d DCA 1979); Fried v. Fried, 375 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Bradley v. Bradley, 347 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mansfield v. Mansfield, 309 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), even if the result were to be to require the husband to pay an amount of alimony entirely exhausting his actual inco......
  • Pimm v. Pimm, 89-00021
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 12, 1990
    ...2d DCA 1979); Fried v. Fried, 375 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Bradley v. Bradley, 347 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mansfield v. Mansfield, 309 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We cannot conclude, however, that a "voluntary" retirement under normal circumstances or at a normal or expected ret......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT