A Child Custody and Visitation case captioned Booth v. Hicks was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeals. In this case, the Mother appealed a final judgment that was rendered against her by the trial court. In this judgment, the lower court awarded the Father sole custody and parental responsibility of the parties' child. The parties' child lived primarily with the Mother. The Father petitioned the court to establish a parenting plan that awarded the Mother timesharing during the week and the Father timesharing on weekends. The Mother provided the trial court with her own parenting plan in which she sought sole parental responsibility.
Modification of Alimony in Florida
A Modification of Alimony case was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Judy v. Judy. In this case the Former Husband sought modification of his alimony obligation. The amount of Former Wife's alimony was previously agreed to in a Marital Settlement Agreement. The Former Husband and Former Wife were married for 26 years. The Former Husband was the primary wage earner, and the Former Wife stayed home to raise the parties' two children. Prior to the Final Hearing, the parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement. The Marital Settlement Agreement stated that the Former Husband would pay 8 years of durational alimony to the Former Wife. The Marital Settlement Agreement also stated that the Former Husband's involuntary loss of employment would be considered to be a substantial change of circumstances for purposes of modification of alimony. By the time that the Final Hearing took place, the Former Husband was involuntarily unemployed. The trial court enforced the Marital Settlement Agreement, however, it permitted the Former Husband to institute an action for modification of alimony. Former Husband brought an action for modification of alimony. However, Former Husband dismissed this claim when he found employment. Five years later, Former Husband again became unemployed and brought this action for modification. Although Former Husband regained employment, he pursued his claim for modification of alimony based upon the fact that his current income was less than it was at the time of the Final Hearing and because the Former Wife had not obtained employment subsequent to the entry of the Final Judgment.
