Husband Seeks To Eliminate Alimony Payments To Wife

In the case of Mango v. Mango, the former husband and wife were divorced in 2003 after a 22-year marriage. Fourteen years later, the former husband filed an Amended Supplemental Petition seeking to eliminate or reduce the permanent periodic alimony that he paid to his former wife. The former husband was required to pay the former wife permanent periodic alimony in the amount of $750 bi-weekly. During the trial, the former husband abandoned his argument that his ability to pay alimony had diminished and instead argued that his wife’s income had increased more than 200% during the 18 years since their dissolution of marriage. Hence, she had a diminished need for alimony.

The former wife, however, testified that her standard of living at the time of trial was substantially worse than it was during the marriage. At the time of trial, she was driving a 21-year-old car with approximately 200,000 miles on it. At times, she was residing with her adult daughter. Further, she had not taken a trip in more than three years and was making minimum payments on her credit cards to ensure she could pay other bills. During the marriage, she argued that her standard of living was considerably higher. They were able to go on vacations, keep season passes to Disney World, and purchase new cars.

The trial court found that the former wife had a continuing need for alimony and the former husband’s ability to pay spousal maintenance had not materially decreased. In doing so, the trial court made specific findings regarding the parties’ respective incomes at the time of the dissolution of marriage, and at the time of the former husband’s petition to eliminate alimony. The trial court also made findings regarding the parties’ respective employment and the assets and liabilities of both parties during the petition.

The husband appealed asking the appeals court to review the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion. Discretion is abused when the judicial action is considered arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. In other words, discretion is abused only when no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court. It is a high standard for review. If reasonable men could differ concerning the propriety of the action taken by the court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.

When petitioning the court for a modification of alimony or spousal maintenance payments, the individual who is petitioning for the change must establish that the financial circumstances around one or both parties have significantly changed (§ 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat.). In this case, the appeals court affirmed the decision of the trial court in denying the husband’s petition to change or eliminate alimony payments. The husband could not establish a significant change in circumstances that would warrant overturning the trial court’s decision. The trial court considered the change in circumstances when adjudicating the case. Hence, the husband was out of luck.

Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce and Alimony Lawyer Today 

Faulkner Law Group, PLLC represents the interests of spouses who are seeking spousal maintenance or alimony from the court. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin drafting your motions right away.

Source:

casetext.com/case/mango-v-mango?q=dissolution%20of%20marriage%202023&jxs=fl&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case&tab=keyword