Tinsley v. Tinsley, 86-97
| Decision Date | 18 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-97,86-97 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 587,502 So.2d 997 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 587 Dorothy Mae TINSLEY, Appellant, v. Lowell Andrew TINSLEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Peter N. Meros of Meros & Smith, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
G. Robert Schultz, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
The twenty-seven-year marriage of Dorothy (wife) and Lowell (husband) Tinsley was dissolved in 1979. In the final judgment the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $1,200 per month as permanent periodic alimony. The wife appeals a postjudgment order of modification which reduced the alimony to $1,075 per month. We find that the husband failed to establish a substantial change of the circumstances of either party justifying the reduction. Accordingly, we reverse.
At the time of the dissolution of their marriage, the parties entered an agreement providing, among other things, that the husband would pay $1,200 per month as permanent periodic alimony and that the obligation would survive his death and bind his estate. At that time the parties anticipated that the wife would continue in her then position as a real estate agent, or would become employed as a nurse.
In 1985, the husband petitioned the circuit court for a decrease in alimony and the wife counterpetitioned for an increase. The court found that the husband's income had increased along with his expenses and therefore found that there was no substantial change in his circumstances. The husband does not dispute that finding. Suffice it to say that the record shows he has more spendable income now than at the time of the dissolution.
Since the dissolution of the marriage, the wife has worked as a nurse. There was no evidence that she had any appreciable increase in income since the divorce beyond an amount which was contemplated by the parties at the time of the dissolution. The wife has, from time to time, contributed to the support of the parties' adult daughter and son who were in need of help because of their personal problems which are not relevant to this discussion. Additionally, the wife adopted the parties' six-year-old grandson when he suffered abuse and neglect from his natural mother, the parties' daughter. The wife's health is deteriorating, she is in need of surgery, and she has no health insurance. As a consequence of the adoption and her serious health problem, the wife has been working part-time, relying on the alimony to supplement her income.
In the order before us the court found that the wife's needs and expenses "would be less ... but for [the] contributions to the support of the children and grandchild." Despite that statement, it is obvious that the court really focused on the wife's expenditures on behalf of the adopted child since the court order went on to state that "the court disregards the contributions that she has testified to making towards the support of and maintenance of the parties' two adult children." Although the court commended the wife's voluntary adoption of the parties' grandson, it felt it was not the responsibility of the husband to contribute indirectly to his support. Based on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DePoorter v. DePoorter
...was set by the trial court based upon an agreement of the parties, bears a heavier burden than is otherwise the case. Tinsley v. Tinsley, 502 So.2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Floyd v. Floyd, 393 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Freeland v. Purcifull, 347 So.2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). See ......
-
Wiedman v. Wiedman
...a change, he carries "a heavier than usual burden of proof." Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So.2d 534, 537 (Fla.1992) quoting Tinsley v. Tinsley, 502 So.2d 997, 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial court ruled that appellant failed to sustain his burden of proving entitlement to modification because, altho......
-
Waldman v. Waldman
...v. Phillippi, 148 Fla. 393, 4 So.2d 465 (1941); De Poorter v. De Poorter, 509 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Tinsley v. Tinsley, 502 So.2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Withers v. Withers, 390 So.2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1147 (Fla.1981); Horner v. Horner, 222 So.2d 791 (......
-
Donoff v. Donoff
...principle that "the purposes to which the recipient puts the alimony generally do not support a modification," citing Tinsley v. Tinsley, 502 So.2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), and Springstead v. Springstead, 717 So.2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA Apart from the doubtful formulation of the principle he sou......