Ryan v. Ryan, AM-322
| Decision Date | 14 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AM-322,AM-322 |
| Citation | 430 So.2d 511 |
| Parties | Thomas A. RYAN, Appellant, v. Susanne G. RYAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J. LaDon Dewrell and F. Lloyd Blue, Jr., of Dewrell, Blue & Brannon, Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.
Thomas T. Remington, of Smith, Grimsley, Remington, Kessler & Simpson, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.
Appellant/husband appeals the trial court's order modifying a dissolution judgment by awarding appellee/wife permanent periodic alimony in the amount of one-half of appellant's net retirement income from the United States Air Force. Wife cross appeals the trial court's denial of her request for attorney's fees. We affirm.
In the Final Judgment of dissolution of marriage, entered January 3, 1980, wife was awarded custody of the three minor children and possession of the marital home until its sale. Husband was required to provide to wife support of $300 per month per child and to pay wife's half of the mortgage payment on the marital home as temporary rehabilitative alimony. No other alimony was awarded. The court expressly reserved jurisdiction to enter "such further orders as may be necessary and proper regarding child custody, child support, and alimony."
In February, 1981, the court, finding there had been a sufficient change in circumstances, entered a modification order terminating husband's obligation for rehabilitative alimony. The court did not mention any reservation of jurisdiction over the parties in that order.
In November, 1981, wife filed a petition for modification, alleging a change in circumstances and seeking an award of permanent and/or rehabilitative alimony. Husband moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that since the obligation to pay alimony had expired as of the February 1981 order, the court no longer had jurisdiction over the cause. In denying the motion, the trial judge stated:
It is this Court's understanding that the posture of the law is that if the court expressly reserves the question of alimony that it is permanent as long as there is any obligation to pay anything. Once the child support has gone out, then the question of alimony is gone. That's my understanding of the posture of the law.
At the modification hearing in April, 1982, husband testified that his net income had substantially increased since February, 1981, to approximately $4,100, and that his net military retirement income was $350 per week. Wife testified that at the time of the February, 1981 modification, her total net income per month was approximately $1,000. At that time she was working and also was receiving child support payments ($300 per month per child for two children). However, since that time, the youngest child had been killed in an accident and, as a result of her distress over the child's death, wife was unable to perform her job and was fired. Thus, she neither had her $500 per month salary nor received the $300 per month child support for the deceased child. Her monthly income, therefore, had decreased by $800. She testified that she had sought employment but had been unsuccessful. The trial court granted wife's request for permanent periodic alimony and increased support for the remaining child to $350 per month but denied her request for attorney's fees.
Husband first argues that the trial judge did not have jurisdiction to order him to pay permanent periodic alimony since the February, 1981...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Hunter
...jurisdiction and the 1983 proceeding was silent as to jurisdiction, jurisdiction continued through the present. See Ryan v. Ryan, 430 So.2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); De Baun v. Michael, 333 So.2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Additionally, the trial court was incorrect in including in the final ju......