Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...We note in this regard that under the law of many states, parties to a divorce may obtain in state court a modification of their obligations by showing changed circumstances. See, e.g., N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50-16.9 (Michie 1976); Ga.Code Ann. § 19-6-18 to -27 (Michie 1982 & Supp. 1984); Fla.Stat.Ann. § 61.14 (West Supp.1984); McGugin v....

...odification of alimony. The wife points out that in petitioning to modify alimony, the moving party must show three fundamental prerequisites. First, there must be a substantial change in circumstances. Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1954); § 61.14(1), Fla....

...ent may be a substantial change, but it is not involuntary; that his retirement was or should have been contemplated at the time of final judgment; and that such a voluntary retirement is not sufficiently permanent in nature. The husband claims that section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] While the motion for rehearing was pending in this case, the wife remarried. Although the issue is technically moot, we decline to dismiss because of the importance of the question certified by the district court. [2] Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...In addition, because it is the duty of the courts, rather than the Support Division or Ms. Fink, to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to hold a parent in contempt as well as to determine how much time to spend on each case, see, e.g., Fla.Stat.Ann. § 61.14(5) (West 1988 & Supp.1996); Fla.R.Jud.Admin., Rule 2.050(b) (West 1996); Rodriquez v....

...on a showing of a change in circumstances after the entry of the decree of divorce, should be decided under applicable statutory law and judicial decisions relating to postnuptial contracts settling the alimony and/or property rights of the parties. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...the financial ability of the husband, decreasing or increasing or confirming the amount of separate support, maintenance or alimony provided for in the agreement or order." We must assume that the parties to this litigation knew of the existence of § 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., when they made their agreement in 1960 and that their capacity to make the agreement was and is limited by same....

...ons outlined in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, supra, 143 So.2d 17, was a valid and binding agreement between the parties at the time and under the conditions it was made, but subject to be increased or decreased under changed conditions as provided in § 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...he public policy of this State. Nonetheless, I agree with Justice Roberts' view as expressed in his opinion on rehearing that an amount of alimony stipulated for in a valid antenuptial agreement may be subject to modification under the provisions of Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., formerly Section 65.15, Florida Statutes, upon a showing that the wife's circumstances have so changed since the amount agreed upon was incorporated in a divorce decree that it would be inequitable to limit he...

...d in the agreement might amount to no alimony at all and the unfortunate lady might thereupon become a public charge and have to go on the draw. I think such a contingency was among the evils intended to be avoided by the legislature when it enacted Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. See State ex rel. Willard v. Harrison, 133 Fla. 169, 183 So. 464 (1937), in which the court was considering Chapter 16780, Acts of 1935, now Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and speaking to the intent and purpose of the cited law quoted with approval the following: "Alimony may be changed on grounds connected with the support of children, or may be increased where it becomes inadequate, as where the wife becomes helpless and needs more than before....

...Some were agreed to mutually between the spouses while others were ordered by the court in divorce litigation where mutual agreement was not forthcoming. As hard times took its toll, the husbands could no longer meet their alimony obligations and relief from such burdens became necessary. Such relief also was contemplated by Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...ce the very purpose of such an agreement is to provide a mutually satisfactory substitute for such determination of ability. If events have since transpired which have changed the wife's circumstances so as to warrant invoking the relief provided by Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the trial court is empowered to grant such relief....

...to require equitable adjustment under the subject statute. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment upholding the validity of the antenuptial agreement and remanding the case for further consideration by the trial court of the question of relief under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., in accordance with the above in the event respondent elects to proceed under said statute by filing appropriate supplemental pleadings....

...ities to pay, inclusive of his present standard of living. This cause has been in litigation many years, and we can anticipate that additional testimony may be necessary to arrive at a conclusion on the merits of this issue. See also Florida Statute § 61.14....

...In that case, in which an antenuptial agreement had made provision for only a limited amount of alimony, the court held that the agreement was valid and binding between the parties, `but subject to be increased or decreased under changed conditions as provided for in § 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.' The decision in that case denotes the validity of the agreement of the wife with relation to alimony in the present case....

...At such time as the youngest child of the marriage attains the age of eighteen years it is the Court's determination that the issue of permanent alimony to the Former Wife be revisited unless said permanent periodic alimony is earlier modified upon a showing of a substantial and material change of circumstances under F.S. 61.14, 1982 as amended....

...promote the procurement of a divorce, then it should be held valid as to conditions existing at the time the agreement was made. " (e.s.) We further noted that the future binding effect of such antenuptial agreement is controlled by Florida Statutes § 61.14, F.S.A., which provides that when "the circumstances of the parties or the financial ability of the husband has changed since the execution of such agreement or the rendition of the order, either party may apply to the circuit court ......

...ons outlined in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, supra, 143 So.2d 17, was a valid and binding agreement between the parties at the time and under the conditions it was made, but subject to be increased or decreased under changed conditions as provided in § 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...n of the agreement in December of 1960, and prior to the divorce in December of 1966. On appeal, the District Court affirmed, holding that "it appears that the chancellor did follow our mandate and did not commit error in limiting the application of § 61.14, Fla....

...disclose, she had or reasonably should have had a general and approximate knowledge of the character and extent of his property she will be bound." In addition, the mandate of this Court required consideration by the trial court of Florida Statutes § 61.14, F.S.A., which provides that a change in circumstances of the party since the date of the agreement can be considered by the Chancellor in modification of support and alimony provided for in an antenuptial agreement....

...It is a fundamental proposition that the welfare of minor children is the concern of the state in which the child may reside or be domiciled. State ex rel. Galen v. Kuhl, Fla. App. 1958, 103 So.2d 225. In furtherance of this proposition the legislature enacted F.S. Section 61.14, F.S.A., which permits either party to apply to the circuit court of the circuit in which the parties resided at the date of application for the modification of any agreement for the payment of support, maintenance or alimony where "the...

...[2] In truth, the concept does little more than articulate that which the courts have long been attempting to do otherwise through the device of lump sum alimony, payable in installments, by which device also the courts have often settled property rights. [3] Section 61.08, F.S. 1973. [4] Cf. Lash v. Lash, n. 1 supra. [5] Section 61.14, F.S....

...ein v. Navarro, 590 So.2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and we concur in the certification of the questions. KLEIN, Judge, specially concurring. I agree entirely with the majority opinion. I am writing separately on an issue not addressed by the majority, section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes....

...*1024 Thus while the plurality finds that Pompey was illegally incarcerated because there was no "affirmative" evidence of ability to purge, apparently they find no constitutional impediment to arresting and incarcerating him without any purge provision at all! I disagree with the plurality's unsupported assertion that section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), is not applicable to this case. [7] They reason that, because the child support judgment was entered in 1986 before this statute was adopted in 1992, it may not be applied in this case. In so doing, they have overlooked subsection (3) of section 61.14, which states that "[this section is declaratory of existing public policy and of the laws of this state]." [e.s.] The term "existing public policy" quite plainly refers to Bowen and its express presumption of ability to purge, as well as its placement of the burden on the contemnor to prove the contrary. Moreover, as disclosed by its title, section 61.14 is undeniably a remedial statute....

...Laforet, 658 So.2d 55 (Fla.1995) (procedural or remedial statute acts retrospectively); City of Orlando v. Desjardins, 493 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 1986) (remedial statute can and should be retroactively applied in order to save its intended purpose). The plurality's failure to apply section 61.14 in this case thus seems contrary to controlling supreme court precedent. Without saying how, the plurality states that the support judgment does not "comply with the terms of" section 61.14....

...notice is given to the defendant, at which time the defendant has an opportunity to defend the charge of contempt. The procedure is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 on indirect criminal contempt. See Bowen, 471 So.2d at 1279. [3] Section 61.14(5), enacted in 1992, attempts to fill the gap that Bowen leaves in determining the purge amount....

...That statute creates a presumption that an obligor has the "present ability ... to purge himself or herself from the contempt" flowing from the entry of the original order of support providing for periodic support payments. Because the original order of support in this case was entered prior to the enactment of section 61.14(5), and the order does not comply with the terms of that section, we are not called upon to consider its application to this case....

...evidence to rebut, violates a criminal defendant's due process rights because it relieves the state of the burden of proof. Marcolini, 673 So.2d at 4, citing Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 313-15, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1971, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985). If section 61.14(5) were a criminal statute and required the trial court to presume ability to pay, it would be arguable that the presumption was facially unconstitutional....

...They seem to ask, like Marullus, "O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome, Knew you not Pompey?" W. Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, I, ii. But it seems to me that if Pompey languished in a prison, it was because he failed to do something, not because the system failed him. [7] See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla....

...The necessary prerequisite for the modification of alimony or child support payments is a showing of substantial change of circumstances, including financial circumstances, of one or both of the parties. Brown v. Brown, 315 So.2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), Section 61.14 Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Veal, 601 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (unilateral decision to pursue higher education cannot excuse parent from child support payment obligations). Several statutory provisions must be examined to adequately evaluate and resolve the issue presented by these cases. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1995), governs "[e]nforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders." That section provides in pertinent part as follows: [W]hen a party is required by court order to make any [s...

...ally" enter an order requiring child support payments if the parties themselves execute a property settlement agreement that is subsequently incorporated into the order. The court then determined that modification of agreements is governed solely by section 61.14, which allows for a modification only if there has been a substantial change in circumstances. We disagree with this interpretation of the statutes. First, the court cited no support for the initial conclusion, and we find no basis in the statute for this holding. Second, both sections 61.13 and 61.14 on their face govern the modification of orders. Thus, we conclude that sections 61.13 and 61.14 must be read in pari materia. In sum, we find that the incorporation of a settlement agreement into a final judgment ordering support is irrelevant in determining whether a court initially ordered support for purposes of bringing an action under sections 61.13 and 61.14....

...Pastore who may be disadvantaged upon the cessation of most support payments in four years. We would note that if in four years Mr. Pastore has not retired, and his former spouse is receiving only $250 a month, she may seek a modification of alimony under section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...That being the case, the wife is dependent for support at this time on the alimony which she receives from the husband. *764 An award of alimony may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances or financial ability of either the husband or the wife. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977); Brown v....

...When a trial court awards rehabilitative alimony when permanent periodic alimony is due, the error is harmful and must be reversed. This is so because it places the burden on the wife to come in at the end of the rehabilitative period and to prove significantly changed circumstances before a modification will be allowed. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981); Holland v....

...d. This order is entirely unsupported by the controlling law and cannot be approved. While the trial court correctly determined that the alimony provision of the Jaffees' agreement was in fact generally subject to modification upon a proper showing, § 61.14, Fla....

...pellant-husband agreed to pay the appellee-wife $500 per month for one year and $400 per month thereafter as long as both lived and the wife did not remarry. On September 18, 1972, the appellant-husband filed his petition for modification under F.S. § 61.14, F.S.A....

...stody and maintenance of children of the marriage (Section 61.13, F.S. 1967, F.S.A.), and upon a change of circumstances of the parties or the financial ability of the husband may modify provisions of the final judgment allowing alimony to the wife (Section 61.14, F.S....

...he wife, cf. Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, Fla. 1953, 65 So.2d 754, and it is clear from a review of the record that the court did not intend it to be such. But if it was so intended, it could only be justified upon the basis of a modification pursuant to Section 61.14, F.S....

...[7] The trial court may take further testimony on these issues, if deemed advisable. [8] Unlike the lump sum award, of course, periodic alimony is subject to termination because of the wife's remarriage or the death of either party. Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra; Adams v. Adams, supra. It may also be modified under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...It is not necessary for a trial judge to anticipate changes in the circumstances. The statutes and the case law of this state provide the judge with a wide basis for the change in the amount of alimony where there is a change in financial circumstances or where equity so requires. See Fla. Stat. § 61.14; and Nichols v....

...In this case, that burden would fall on Mr. Acker. But if the court finds that the prerequisites are met, the court must then determine to what extent the alimony award should be increased or decreased. This determination must be made in accordance with section 61.08(2). Section 61.14 itself provides no criteria on which to make such a determination except to provide that "the court has jurisdiction to make orders as equity requires, with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties." § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

...Consequently, we cannot find this to be a pure property settlement agreement not subject to modification. Therefore, the terms of our holding in Ohmes v. Ohmes, 200 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) more closely apply. Thus, in so holding, we also find that Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975) is applicable to the litigation herein. Section 61.14(1), relating to modification of alimony judgments; agreements, etc., provides, in part: "When the parties have entered into ......

...decreasing, increasing, or confirming the amount of . . alimony provided for in the agreement or order." [Emphasis added] The order appealed from dismissed the petition for modification without any hearing on the theory that Howell took the action out of the operation of Section 61.14. In this, the trial court was in error. As the Georgia judgment is now a Florida judgment and is not a genuine property transfer agreement, Section 61.14 does apply and thus is available to both husband and wife for modification of alimony....

...4th DCA 2003). Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980). Florida Statute § 61.14 (2004), governs the modification of alimony. It provides that when the "circumstances or the financial ability of either party changes" either party may apply for modification. § 61.14(1)(a) Fla....

...Zolonz, 659 So.2d 451, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Contracts regarding the support of minor children remain subject to the plenary power of the state to control, regulate and discretion to enforce. Zolonz, 659 So.2d at 452; see also §§ 61.13(1)(a), 61.14(1)(a)....

...One was not prosecuted, and the other did not reach the subject of child support. Averbeck took no action after Burkley quit Holiday World in 2001, after he began working for and quit Terminex *268 in 2002, or when he entered the VA Program in 2002. Section 61.14(1)(a) expressly delineates the court's power and, more important in this case, its limitations when considering a petition for modification of child support....

...Upon a party's application and with "due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child," the court may increase or decrease child support retroactively to the date of the filing of the action. In addition, section 61.14(2) prohibits parties or courts from sidestepping the provisions governing modification of child support agreements for minors....

...object of charity." Killian v. Lawson, 387 So.2d 960, 962 (Fla.1980). In determining whether a payment provision is for support or whether it is a property settlement payment, there are certain characteristics to consider. For instance, according to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2001), a support award is modifiable....

...icient financial ability to discharge any reasonable order with respect to alimony. [2] Following a nonjury trial, the trial court denied all relief sought by both parties. The Third District Court of Appeal rejected the wife's contention that under section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1985), she was entitled to an increase in alimony as a matter of law because of the husband's stipulated substantial increase in his financial ability....

...ity of the paying spouse to meet those needs, which needs continue to remain unmet at the time modification *1007 is sought." Bedell, 561 So.2d at 1182. Applying this rationale to the facts, the district court of appeal affirmed the order of denial. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1985), provides that when there has been an order to pay alimony in connection with a dissolution of marriage "and the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed" since "the rendition of the order, either party may apply to the circuit court ......

...the basis of the change in [the former husband's] financial condition." McArthur v. McArthur, 95 So.2d 521, 524 (Fla. 1957). At first blush, it appears that the two lines of authority are irreconcilable. However, a careful analysis of the wording of section 61.14 leads us to believe that the solution lies between the two positions. The statute gives an ex-spouse the right to file a petition for an increase in alimony where "the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed." § 61.14(1), Fla....

...A fundamental prerequisite to modification of alimony or child support payments is a showing of substantial change of circumstances, including financial circumstances, of one or both of the parties. See Chastain v. Chastain, Fla. 1954, 73 So.2d 66; § 61.14(1), Fla....

...The language of the applicable statute, which has been with us at least since 1935 in one form or another, makes no distinction between obligations imposed by the court and obligations established by a settlement agreement. The pertinent subparagraph of section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1985), provides: (1) When the parties have entered into, or hereafter enter into, an agreement for payments for, or instead of, support, *1273 maintenance, or alimony, whether in connection with a proceeding for disso...

...ut that Smith's obligation to support his ex-wife would end after four years by order of the lower court, does not escape us. [11] It is perhaps superfluous to add that this "permanent" alimony is subject to modification upon a proper showing, under § 61.14, F.S....

...It is not necessary for a trial judge to anticipate changes in the circumstances. The statutes and the case law of this state provide the judge with a wide basis for the change in the amount of alimony where there is a change in financial circumstances or where equity so requires. See Fla. Stat. § 61.14; and Nichols v....

...[1] The judgment below is otherwise affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. DOWNEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. NOTES [1] We again emphasize, as we did in the earlier opinion at 351 So.2d 1105, that this award is subject to modification under § 61.14, F.S....

...iscretion. These section 61.08(2) factors operate to direct and circumscribe all awards of alimony, thereby making outcomes more predictable. Nothing in any statute purports to eliminate these "relevant economic factors" when modifying alimony under section 61.14....

...Indeed section 61.08(2) specifies that it applies whenever the court is "determining a proper award of alimony" under the statute. [3] We therefore join the Fifth District in holding that all applicable section 61.08(2) factors must be considered in modification proceedings under section 61.14....

...esidence premises, shall be permanent, that is, to continue until the death of the appellant-wife or until her remarriage, subject to modification thereof by the trial court for a change of circumstances, as provided for by proceedings brought under § 61.14 Fla....

...sing not to enjoin the husband from pursuing the remedies which he might desire in the courts of New York. The question of whether a Florida court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a New York separation agreement is answered by a review of § 61.14, Fla....

...ights of others or to transgress public morals or policy. Thus, if a law protects the public as well as an individual, the protection to the public or state cannot be waived by the individual." 12 Fla.Jur. Estoppel and Waiver § 5. Subsection (3) of Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: This section is declaratory of existing public policy and of laws of this state which are hereby confirmed in accordance with the provisions hereof....

...Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In the event that substantial rehabilitation does not occur by the end of eighteen months despite the husband's reasonable and diligent *379 efforts, the husband can petition the court for modification of the alimony award. Section 61.14 Florida Statutes (1975); Lee v....

...itled to a judgment. Miller v. Eatmon, supra . On the basis of the admitted facts in these pleadings, the wife was entitled to a judgment on the pleadings. The husband contends that he is entitled to seek a modification of the alimony payments under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975), yet it is obvious from a study of the Separation and Property Settlement Agreement that this instrument was more than "an agreement for payments for, or instead of support, maintenance or alimony" which is subject to modification under that statute....

...1959, 112 So.2d 581. Nil prospects to the contrary notwithstanding, if she should somehow blossom into a financially productive member of society and other material change occur, the husband can obtain a trial court review of the award and relief. Section 61.14, F.S....

...Since she has no income or income producing ability at the time of the adjudication she is stuck. She is at rock-bottom now insofar as earning capacities are concerned and, barring further medical disabilities, can obtain no relief by new petition under Section 61.14, F.S....

...not tainted by fraud or overreaching and fairly entered into after full disclosure, are valid and binding as to conditions existing at the time the agreement was made, and are subject to modification by the trial court only *296 upon a showing under Section 61.14, F.S....

...For ought we know, the court's prognostication as to the husband's economic future well may have proven correct, and in the year since the entry of the final judgment the husband indeed may have lost his job. If so, the time to seek modification under Section 61.14, F.S....

...y synonymous with the word `forever'. Change of circumstances, including ability of self-support after children are `grown and gone' clearly justifies, depending upon the circumstances of each case, modification of alimony judgments (Florida Statute 61.14)." Similarly, in Bender v....

...y and even without an express reservation, the trial court retains jurisdiction to consider a petition for modification or extension of rehabilitative alimony as long as it is filed within the period of rehabilitation provided by the final judgment. Section 61.14, Fla....

...mony and, if so, what amount. Sara Pujals in fact obtained her medical license and the mooted issue is whether the modification permitted for "changed circumstances during the five year period" is limited to that period or may extend thereafter. [4] 61.14 Modification of alimony judgments; agreements, etc....

...PEARSON, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge. SCHWARTZ, Judge. Powell appeals [1] from an order increasing from $2,700 to $3,500 per month the alimony provided his ex-wife in a 1976 final judgment which adopted an agreement between the parties. [2] We affirm. Under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977) and the established law which is incorporated into that statute, modification of a previous alimony award is justified by a meaningful change in the financial circumstances of either party, relating to the needs of the spouse receiving the alimony or the ability of the other spouse to pay....

...[2] The agreement provided, inter alia, for ten years of monthly alimony payments, terminating January 1, 1986. It specifically stated that "[e]ither party shall have the right to petition the court for modification of alimony payments pursuant to Florida Statute 61.14, during the period of time that alimony shall be an obligation of the husband as set forth herein." Unlike such decisions as Pusey v....

...iginal order upon a showing of necessity to further the supported child's best interest, when the child reaches the age of majority, or if there is a substantial change *490 in the circumstances of the parties. See § 61.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2001), contemplates that either party in the original action may seek modification of an order requiring the payment of support "as equity requires." See § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). It further provides that "any unpaid payment or installment of support which has accrued up to the time either party files a motion with the court to alter or modify the support order" may not be reduced by the court. § 61.14(6)(a)(3), Fla....

...at 646. Upon the parent's release, the trial court should then consider the motion in light of the contemporary circumstances of all the parties involved and enter a judgment appropriate at that time. See id. Importantly, under New Jersey's equivalent of section 61.14, this method eliminates the problem of vesting ever-increasing arrearage amounts because any payments accruing after the motion is filed may be modified, based upon the circumstances revealed at the hearing after the obligor's release from prison....

...and provide a realistic plan for payment. We conclude that the New Jersey court's logic and course of action is well-founded, and that it recognizes and accommodates the competing concerns and interests presented in this case. Therefore, pursuant to section 61.14(1)(a), a parent seeking modification of child support payments because he or she is unable to pay the installments due to incarceration may file a petition to modify with the trial court that entered the original child support order....

...unts and the current support. Such an abandonment would only result in contempt charges filed against the obligor which could affect his or her credit report, result in additional financial hardship, or cause a return to incarceration. See § 38.23; § 61.14(6)(b)(1)d, (6)(d), Fla....

...from the attempt to avoid his or her child support obligation, such as the outrageous circumstances in Mascola v. Lusskin, 727 So.2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), neither equity nor our case law would support modifying a child support obligation. Because section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2002), [2] pronounces that equity is considered in any petition to modify, clearly there can be no equity in the reduction of a child support obligation of a parent who is incarcerated for a crime that resulted from the attempt to avoid his or her child support obligation....

...financial ability to pay at the time he or she files the petition to modify his or her support obligations, trial judges may reduce child support arrearages to judgments to provide that the support obligations may be satisfied from these assets. [2] Section 61.14(1)(a), provides in pertinent part: Except as otherwise provided in s....

...Temporary support issues cannot always await full discovery or the preparation of an expert's opinion. In addition, temporary support orders are, obviously, temporary. They do not create vested rights, and they can be modified or vacated at any time by the circuit court while the litigation proceeds. See § 61.14(11), Fla....

...Even when the parties misrepresent their income, the court must still attempt to establish alimony based on need, ability to pay, and the relevant statutory factors." Cf. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 918 So.2d 412, 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). [3] The legislature added this provision to section 61.14 effective July 1, 2004, ch.2004-47, Laws of Fla., in direct response to cases such as this court's opinion in Kraus v....

...the principles announced in Aldrich v. Aldrich, supra. However, we take this opportunity to reemphasize our parenthetical note in Aldrich v. Aldrich, supra, relative to modification of alimony decrees and agreements as provided by Florida Statutes, Section 61.14, [1] F.S.A....

...ut prior agreement but also without being challenged by appeal, the closing of an estate could be delayed for years causing much hardship to the executor and beneficiaries of the estate. However, the chancellor in equity armed with Florida Statutes, Section 61.14, and with Florida Statutes, Section 61.08 F.S.A., [2] allowing for payment of alimony in a lump sum and upon appropriate application by the personal representative of the estate may reexamine the alimony award and give consideration to...

...The majority opinion in this case will now give to this language an interpretation which was clearly unlawful at the time, which was neither intended by the judge nor understood by the parties, and which cannot now be appealed. Therefore, I dissent. NOTES [1] 61.14 Modification of alimony judgments; agreemeents, etc....

...Considered in its entirety, the document has more of the characteristics of an agreement providing for alimony and support which is subject to modification upon a showing of changed circumstances. [2] Fort v. Fort, 90 So.2d 313 (Fla. 1956); Ohmes v. Ohmes, 200 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); § 61.14, Fla....

...the strike resulted in a substantial change in his circumstances which supports the order reducing child support payments. The husband's petition for modification of the child support order which adopted the agreement of the parties is authorized by Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...hange in her circumstances or financial needs which threatens her standard of living, she is entitled to an upward modification of the alimony which, of course, must be consistent with the husband's continued ability to pay. Canakaris v. Canakaris ; § 61.14, Fla....

...We also point out that the word "permanent" is not necessarily synonymous with "forever". Change of circumstances, including ability of self support after children are "grown and gone" clearly justifies, depending upon the circumstances of each case, modification of alimony judgments (Florida Statute 61.14)....

...Here, there was no showing that the husband had the capability while he was in prison to earn the amount imputed to him. Second, the child support provision is insufficient on its face because it contains no finding of a present ability to pay as required by section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), which provides: "When a court of competent jurisdiction enters an order for the payment of alimony or child support or both, the court shall make a finding of the obligor's imputed or actual present abili...

...is subject to modification upon a proper showing of substantial change in circumstances or financial ability of one or both of the parties or of the children occurring subsequent to the final judgment. Lee v. Lee, 157 Fla. 439, 26 So.2d 177 (1946); Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...of Health and Rehabilitative Services. OVERTON, Justice. We have for review two cases, State ex rel. Pittman v. Stanjeski, 541 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and Attorney General v. D'Agosto, 541 So.2d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the district courts declared unconstitutional section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...esent common law and equitable defenses, effectively providing an opportunity to be heard and eliminating the lower courts' bases for holding the statute unconstitutional. The issue in both of the cases consolidated in this appeal is the validity of section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987), the pertinent portions of which provide: (5)(a) When support payments are made through the local depository, an unpaid payment or installment of support which becomes due after July 1, 1987, under any suppor...

...on. Seven months after the change of custody, on July 22, 1987, while the petition was pending on the court calendar, Jed Pittman, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Pasco County, issued to Mr. Stanjeski a "Notice to Obligor of Delinquency," pursuant to section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987), notifying him that his support payment was delinquent and that a judgment would be rendered against him by operation of law if he failed to pay the delinquent payment within thirty days of July 3, 1987....

...Stanjeski filed a petition to enjoin the entry of the judgment. The trial court granted the petition on October 14, 1987, and directed the clerk not to enter a judgment under the statute. The trial court subsequently entered a final judgment in that proceeding, finding that section 61.14(5) violates due process and deprives the petitioner of his right of access to the courts....

...t's permission. Because Mr. D'Agosto did not make his July 10, 1987, payment into the court depository, on August 12, 1987, the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Indian River County sent D'Agosto a certified letter, in accordance with the provisions of section 61.14(5), notifying him that his payments were delinquent and that the provisions of the statute would be applicable to him if he did not make his payment before August 27, 1987....

...day in Court to present evidence pertaining to any number of recognized equitable defenses including set-off, acquiescence, laches, estoppel, and waiver.'" Id. at 169 (citations omitted). The district court of appeal, in affirming the trial judge, expressly adopted his analysis and findings. Constitutionality of Section 61.14(5) The statutory provision at issue provides that an unpaid support payment which becomes due after July 1, 1987, shall become a final judgment by operation of law after notice to the obligor from the clerk of the court....

...after the delinquency occurs. The statute expressly allows the obligor to file a "response." Once the clerk has recorded a certified copy of the judgment, it, like any other judgment, creates a lien against real property. The statute also states, in section 61.14(5)(a)3, that a court may not modify any order for support as to any unpaid installments which have accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter, or modify the support order....

...The state argues that the delinquent obligor had an opportunity for access to the courts at the time the support order was entered and that an obligor has no constitutional right of access to the courts when the delinquent support payment is to become a judgment by operation of law. The state argues in the alternative that section 61.14(5)(a) does allow an opportunity to be heard before the entry of a judgment and that section 61.14(5)(d) need not be interpreted to prohibit rule 1.540 relief after judgment or to deny the ability of an obligor to present defenses in judgment enforcement proceedings. With regard to section 61.14(5)(a), the state asserts that the part of this subsection giving the obligor the right to file a "response" can be reasonably interpreted to mean that when an obligor files a response, the response should be considered by a judge. The state notes that the statute does not prohibit this type of hearing. With regard to section 61.14(5)(d), the state submits that the courts below incorrectly interpreted this provision and contends that the legislature never intended that the relief provided by rule 1.540 under the narrow grounds of fraud and mistake and under the ot...

...With that caveat, the amendments direct each state to adopt certain procedures to "increase the effectiveness of the program which the State administers." Id. Also, in 1986, Congress added further procedures which states are required to include in their support enforcement programs. 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9) (Supp. IV 1986). Section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987), is only a part of the Florida Legislature's support enforcement package, which was enacted in the 1987 legislative session in an attempt to bring Florida into full compliance with the 1984 and 1986 congressi...

...There may be other equitable defenses that can be raised based on other types of extraordinary circumstances. We emphasize that the underlying purpose of this process is to assure the payment of child support for the welfare of the child. We agree with the state that section 61.14(5) can be reasonably construed in a constitutional manner. We emphasize that this statute is just one part of the overall scheme for the collection of support. We find that section 61.14(5)(a) and (b) should be interpreted to allow for a hearing prior to the entry of a "final judgment by operation of law," provided that the obligor timely files a response....

...To hold otherwise would deny the obligor an opportunity to be heard before entry of a judgment and thus would violate the access to the courts provision of the Florida Constitution and the due process clauses of both the Florida and United States constitutions. With regard to section 61.14(5)(d), we interpret the asserted prohibitory language, "[t]he court does not have the power to set aside, alter, or modify such order or any portion thereof," as doing no more than codifying the existing law of this state concerning the vested rights of a custodial parent, as expressed in Pottinger and Fox....

...We find, as the state acknowledged, that an obligor may still assert all the equitable defenses under law in any enforcement proceeding and that, in certain circumstances, an obligor's past due payments can be canceled. See Pottinger; Fox. Further, we find that the legislature, by its enactment of section 61.14(5)(d), did not intend to prohibit the application of rule 1.540 to any judgment entered in accordance with section 61.14(5)(a) and (b)....

...We note that the legislature has subsequently made clear its intention not to preclude such relief by amending the subject statute in 1988 to add the following sentence: "This paragraph does not prohibit the court from providing relief from the judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540." § 61.14(5)(d), Fla....

...ses to a judicial officer before the entry of a judgment; (3) we hold that, in an enforcement proceeding after judgment, an obligor may present common law defenses; and (4) we hold that an obligor may utilize rule 1.540 proceedings. We conclude that section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987), as we have interpreted it, is constitutional....

...in this proceeding and asserting that change as a defense to the delinquent support payments. The Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision is quashed, and this cause must be remanded for further proceedings. For the reasons expressed, we find that section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987), as interpreted and construed in this opinion, is constitutional; and, accordingly, we quash the decisions of the district courts holding to the contrary....

...This precedent governs the instant situation, and it is our opinion that the trial court has committed reversible error in terminating the husband's alimony payments to the wife and in ordering her to return the payments for the period subsequent to January 1, 1974, on the basis of a "de facto" marriage. However, § 61.14, Fla....

...ement and the judgment, [1] the husband's agreed obligation to maintain the insurance policy for the wife's benefit was a property right acquired as a part of a property settlement and, as such, was not subject to modification pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 61.14....

...I agree that the precedent cited above is governing upon this court, but I do not agree that it is governing in this case. The authority to modify the judgment as to alimony, irrespective of whether there was an agreement between the parties, exists in Fla. Stat. § 61.14....

...o a rate of approximately $92,000.00 per year. Appellant was a surgical resident at the time of the divorce and thereafter entered private practice. We hold that the question presented must be answered in the affirmative upon authority of Fla. Stat. § 61.14(1), F.S.A., which provides in part: "* * * when a party is required by court order to make any payments, and the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed * * *." (Emphasis added) See also McArthur v....

...ore not available to modify a divorce decree that was entered prior to the effective date of the no-fault statute. Secondly, the court erred in reducing and then terminating the alimony of the appellant-wife on the sole basis of her employment. F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A., which was correctly relied upon by the chancellor, does allow alimony judgments to be modified if "the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed since the rendition of such order." In the case at bar, the hus...

...Henry prayed that the court correct the alleged oversight and omission and, in the alternative, alleged that there had been a change in circumstances as a result of the remarriage of Eleanor and prayed that her alimony be modified by being terminated forthwith. In his amendment to the motion, Henry alleged that § 61.08 and § 61.14, Fla....

...her ten-year cohabitation with another man. The trial court denied the Former Husband's motion after concluding that the Former Wife and her long-term companion, Virgil Wasco, are not engaged in a "supportive relationship" as that phrase is used in section 61.14(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). Because the trial court's conclusion is not supported by its factual findings, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. In addition, because there is little case law applying section 61.14(1)(b), we address the statute and the issues raised by the parties in some detail. Section 61.14(1)(b) Prior to the enactment of section 61.14(1)(b), the courts allowed a payor spouse to seek modification of alimony under section 61.14(a) when the recipient spouse was cohabiting with another....

...Instead, modification required evidence of both cohabitation and a change in circumstances concerning the recipient spouse's needs. Rahn v. Rahn, 768 So.2d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Reno, 884 So.2d at 465; Springstead, 717 So.2d at 204. In 2005, the legislature enacted section 61.14(b) to "provide an alternate method to a court to reduce or terminate alimony, without first having to find that there has been a change in financial circumstance, as is the case in current law." Sen. Staff Analysis, C.B./S.B. 152 at 12 (Feb. 25, 2005). As enacted, section 61.14(1)(b)(1) permits the trial court to reduce or terminate alimony if it makes a specific written finding that the recipient spouse has entered into a "supportive relationship" with another person....

..."that relationships do exist that provide economic support equivalent to a marriage and that alimony terminable on remarriage may be reduced or terminated upon the establishment of equivalent equitable circumstances as described in this paragraph." § 61.14(1)(b)(3). To determine whether a "supportive relationship" exists under the statute, the trial court is required to "elicit the nature and extent of the relationship in question." § 61.14(1)(b)(2)....

...Evidence in support of a claim that the obligee and the other person have an implied agreement regarding property sharing or support. k. Whether the obligee and the other person have provided support to the children of one another, regardless of any legal duty to do so. Id. In addition, section 61.14(1)(b)(3) permits the trial court to consider whether the relationship is a conjugal one....

...her. Based on this conclusion, the trial court denied the Former Husband's motion to reduce or terminate alimony, and he now appeals. Standard of Review As an initial matter, we address the proper standard of review of a trial court's decision under section 61.14(1)(b)....

...Based on the statutory framework, we believe that the decision made by a trial court under this section presents a mixed question of law and fact, which calls for a mixed standard of review. The trial court's first task when considering a petition under section 61.14(1)(b) is to make factual findings based on the evidence presented by the parties....

...Assuming an asset or liability is determined to be marital, the trial court has broad discretion in how it distributes that asset or liability. Cory v. Cory, 536 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We can see no relevant differences between *954 the analysis required under section 61.075 and the analysis required under section 61.14(1)(b) that would dictate a different standard of review....

...The facts presented at the hearing show that the Former Wife and Wasco are in a long-term, committed relationship that provides both economic and social support equivalent to that of a marriage. Under these circumstances, the evidence established the existence of a "supportive relationship" as contemplated by section 61.14(1)(b). At the hearing, the trial court concluded that the Former Wife and Wasco were not engaged in a "supportive relationship" because Wasco was not fully supporting the Former Wife. However, nothing in section 61.14(1)(b) requires the recipient spouse to be completely dependent on the cohabitant before a "supportive relationship" can exist....

...4th DCA 2007) (affirming the conclusion that a "supportive relationship" existed when the former wife had no income and did not work outside the home and her live-in companion paid all of their joint expenses and supported the former wife's children). However, section 61.14(1)(b)(2)(d) specifically requires the trial court to consider the extent to which the parties have supported each other "in whole or in part....

...Thus, under this pre-enactment case law, the evidence would have supported a conclusion that Wasco was partially supporting the Former Wife, which could warrant a reduction of her alimony. That said, however, these pre-enactment cases focus solely on the issue of financial support. Under section 61.14(1)(b)(2), financial support is but one factor to be considered in determining whether a "supportive relationship" exists....

...Proceedings on Remand Because we are holding that a supportive relationship exists, the sole question for the trial court to consider on remand is whether to reduce or terminate the Former Husband's alimony obligation. We recognize that the legislative history of section 61.14(1)(b) seems to indicate that the trial court does not need to consider the Former Wife's need for the alimony in reaching this decision. See Sen. Staff Analysis, C.B./S.B. 152 at 12 (Feb. 25, 2005). However, the language of the statute does not effectuate this intent. Section 61.14(1)(b)(1) permits the trial court to reduce or terminate alimony if a "supportive relationship" exists, but it provides no guidance to the trial court concerning how to exercise its discretion should it decide to do so. Other courts have required the trial court to apply the provisions of section 61.08(2), which lists the factors the trial court must consider when determining an award of alimony, when modifying alimony under section *956 61.14....

...iscretion. These section 61.08(2) factors operate to direct and circumscribe all awards of alimony, thereby making outcomes more predictable. Nothing in any statute purports to eliminate these "relevant economic factors" when modifying alimony under section 61.14....

...Indeed, section 61.08(2) specifies that it applies whenever the court is "determining a proper award of alimony" under the statute. Donoff, 940 So.2d at 1223. Our review of the applicable statutes leads us to agree with the First, Fourth, and Fifth Districts that section 61.08(2) applies to modification proceedings under section 61.14(1)(b). Despite the legislature's stated intent, nothing in section 61.14(1)(b) states that section 61.08(2) is inapplicable....

...im *1304 commensurate with his age, education and work experience. Although appellant's petition for modification sought termination of his support obligation, we find the prayer for relief to be broad enough to encompass a modification as well. See § 61.14(1), Fla....

...y nature against the other or the other's heirs, estate, successors or assigns. Whether these paragraphs refer to alimony or a final property settlement agreement is at issue and the distinction between the two concepts is determinative. Pursuant to section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1973), payments that are considered in the nature of alimony are modifiable....

...First, the court below did not "initially" enter an order requiring child support payments. Instead, the parties themselves executed a property settlement agreement wherein they provided for child support payments. Later, the court opted to incorporate this agreement into the dissolution judgment. [1] Second, section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1981), specifically addresses the situation where a party seeks to modify an agreement providing for child support payments which has been incorporated into a divorce decree. Section 61.14(1) provides in pertinent part as follows: 61.14 Modification of alimony judgments; agreements, etc....

...5th DCA 1981), appeal dismissed, 402 So.2d 609 (Fla. 1981); Fox v. Haislett, 388 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Burdack v. Burdack, 371 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Brown v. Brown, 315 So.2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); see, section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...Hyotlaine v. Hyotlaine, 356 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978): In reference to the payments, if they are for support, maintenance or alimony, either party may apply for a judgment decreasing or increasing the amount provided for in the agreement. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...A court which enters an order requiring one or both parties to make child support payments has continuing jurisdiction to modify the amount or terms of the payment, whether the source of the obligation was a court order or an agreement between the parties approved by the court. § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (1981). [1] Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981), [2] specifically provides for the modification of child support agreements on the basis of changed circumstances of the parties or when the beneficiary child reaches the age of 18....

...res, with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child or children, decreasing, increasing, or confirming the amount of separate support, maintenance, or alimony provided for in the agreement or order. § 61.14(1), Fla....

...rse and remand with instructions to conduct such further proceedings as are consistent with our decision today. STONE, C.J., DELL, GUNTHER, WARNER, POLEN, STEVENSON, SHAHOOD, GROSS, TAYLOR, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. KLEIN, J., recused. NOTES [1] See § 61.14(1), Fla....

...[5] Hence the father's conduct leading to his imprisonment had to have been voluntary on his part. At the same time, modification of child support is governed by chapter 61, and proceedings under chapter 61 are in equity and are covered by the basic rules of fairness. See § 61.14(1) ("court has jurisdiction to make orders as equity requires"); Rosen v....

...[2] Our opinion in the appeal of the criminal conviction makes clear that the father first tried to get the mother to have an abortion and when she refused attempted to hire a "hit man" to kill her, saying "I want to make sure she does not give birth to those two kids. How, I don't care." 690 So.2d at 612. [3] See § 61.14(1), Fla....

...d by the parties during the marriage." Of course, should the former wife's financial circumstances undergo a substantial, material and unanticipated change, then the law provides appropriate procedures for seeking a modification of an alimony award. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1989); Zipperer v....

...Pimm, 601 So.2d 534, 535 (Fla. 1992), in order to modify an alimony award, the movant, in this case, the former husband, is required to show three prerequisites: First, there must be a substantial change in circumstances. Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1954); § 61.14(1), Fla....

...ate of the filing, in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, of our mandate in this case. This ruling will not operate to preclude the wife from filing a petition in the trial court in the future for further modification of the judgment under § 61.14 Fla....

...nd held to be in contempt for alleged failure to comply with the judgment's requirements for payment of alimony, child support and certain medical expenses. Prior to hearing thereon the husband filed a petition for modification of the judgment under § 61.14 Fla....

...ce on the wife's automobile. Where it was made to appear that the husband's gross income was no less than at the time of the judgment, an unexplained assertion that his net income was less by approximately $40 per week did not disclose a basis under § 61.14 Fla....

...1959, 112 So.2d 581. Nil prospects to the contrary notwithstanding, if she should somehow blossom into a financially productive member of society and other material change occur, the husband can obtain a trial court review of the award and relief. Section 61.14, F.S....

...he wife, while the obligations to pay such alimony is in effect, the obligation to pay the same would thereupon terminate. Proceedings for modification of the judgment, as amended in this regard, would be available to the parties in the future under § 61.14 Fla....

...Thereupon, the judgment will be affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions to enter an amended judgment. The award of alimony in the amount of $900 per month shall be designated as permanent alimony until and unless a subsequent order is entered based upon a change in circumstances pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...stody and maintenance of children of the marriage (Section 61.13, F.S. 1967, F.S.A.), and upon a change of circumstances of the parties or the financial ability of the husband may modify provisions of the final judgment allowing alimony to the wife (Section 61.14, F.S....

...Thus, depending on the financial circumstances of the parties, the provisions of a final judgment of dissolution may very well leave the parties in a financial posture not as good as the standard they enjoyed during the marriage. This often is one of the consequences of divorce. The test for modification is set forth in section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1983), viz: a change in circumstances or financial ability of the parties from the date of the order or judgment which made the award....

...Pullo to retain 100% of those retirement benefits contravenes the plain language of the final judgment. I conclude that requiring the former wife's participation in the DROP account is actually a prohibited modification of a distribution of marital property. Florida courts uniformly agree that section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes, does not allow modification of a property distribution....

...y distributions"); Spano v. Spano, 698 So.2d 324, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ("[A] property distribution under chapter 61 is quite different than alimony, child support, or child custody and visitation as regards the ability to modify a judgment. . . . Section 61.14 makes clear that only alimony and child support, or child custody, or child visitation may be modified after final judgment....

...we decline to rule on the merits regarding whether appellant proved a substantial change in circumstances so as to justify the modification, nonetheless, because the matter will be reconsidered on remand, some discussion of this issue is necessary. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1989), allows a party to seek modification of an existing child support order because of a change in circumstances....

...ion is of no consequence in light of the following. As one of her contentions on appeal, appellant alleges this reduction as error on the part of the trial court. In support of her contention, appellant cites several cases supporting the theory that Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...Putnam v. Putnam, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So.2d 30; Ohmes v. Ohmes, Fla.App. 1967, 200 So.2d 849; Kosch v. Kosch, Fla. 1959, 113 So.2d 547. Furthermore, judicial modification of specific awards of alimony contained in an agreement is explicitly dealt with by Section 61.14, Florida Statutes: "(1) When a husband and wife have entered or hereafter enter into an agreement for payments for * * * alimony, whether in connection with an action for divorce or separate maintenance or with any voluntary property se...

...e, [3] I respectfully disagree that Petracca is relevant or applicable to this case. NOTES [1] As the trial judge noted, most of the failure to disclose on the part of Mr. Crupi dealt with matters that would have reduced the value of the assets. [2] Section 61.14(1)(a) provides that when the parties enter into an agreement for payments for or instead of support, maintenance or alimony, whether in connection with a proceeding for dissolution or a voluntary property settlement or when the parties...

...The Former wife has no income, and does not work outside the home for pay. She is a volunteer worker at her church, and travels with Mr. Camp on occasion to various destinations connected with his business. Upon considering the evidence presented at hearing, and the factors set forth in Florida Statute 61.14, it is clear that a long-term supportive relationship between Mr....

...McBride, 352 So.2d 1254, 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). By statute, where there is a change of circumstances, either party may apply for an increase or decrease in alimony "with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties." § 61.14, Fla....

...4th DCA 1996), we stated that cohabitation may justify the elimination of alimony, "depending on how the new living situation has impacted the alimony recipient's financial condition and continued need for alimony." Reno, 884 So.2d at 465. Since Reno, the legislature has adopted section 61.14(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2006)....

...ly that relationships do exist that provide economic support equivalent to a marriage and that alimony terminable on remarriage may be reduced or terminated upon the establishment of equivalent equitable circumstances as described in this paragraph. § 61.14(1)(b)3., Fla....

...elected to be sued in the county of her residence. She also filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the husband was not paying separate support, maintenance or alimony and was therefore not within the contemplation of the modification statute, F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A....

...On May 3, 1968, the Collier County Circuit Court entered its order simply dismissing the cause with prejudice and assessing costs against the husband. RCP, rule 1.060(b), 30 F.S.A. Petitioner Stewart has appealed to this Court. Stewart argues that F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A., clearly provides that this action can be brought in a county where either party resides, citing Norton v. Norton, 1938, 131 Fla. 219, 179 So. 414. Mrs. Carr contends that after the "determination of the Court's jurisdiction under § 61.14", the general venue statute, F.S....

...er to force the plaintiff to accept another forum. Touchton v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App. 1963, 155 So.2d 738. The statute under which the case sub judice was filed seeking modification of the West Virginia divorce decree is F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A., and inter alia is as follows: "When a husband and wife * * * enter into an agreement for * * * support, maintenance or alimony, * * * or when a husband is required by court order to make any payments to his wife, and the circumstance...

...of Broward County, State of Florida". By the motions to dismiss and to abate and for change of venue from Broward County to Collier County filed by Mrs. Carr, such averment as to residence of petitioner was admitted. *528 We therefore hold that F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A., the modification statute under which the instant proceeding was filed in Broward County, and which contains affirmative provisions with reference to venue, controls, and that the action was permissively instituted in that county, the residence of Stewart, he having the choice within the confines of the statute....

...was amended by the legislature in 1967 and became effective on June 26, 1967, between the date the petition was filed in the Broward Court and the date of that Court's order of transfer. The amendment was without significance here. As so amended, the section was renumbered to be F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A....

...Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 525 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 1981); Arnnour v. Allen, 377 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See also § 61.14(6)(a)3....

...eeds of the wife and the husband's ability to pay. Wilson v. Wilson, supra . Such permanent alimony award shall remain subject, of course, to the right of either party, under the appropriate circumstances, to seek modification pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 61.14 (1973)....

...1] and had exclusive jurisdiction over any proceedings initiated for the purpose of modifying that aspect of the final judgment. [2] Such contention regarding the exclusivity of the court of original jurisdiction loses its force in the face of F.S., Section 61.14, F.S.A., which provides, inter alia, that when any party is required by court order to make any payments, and the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed since the rendition of the order, either party may appl...

...Such notice may be by mail and its sufficiency in each particular instance is tested by its reasonableness and by the adequacy of the opportunity afforded the opposing party to be heard and to defend against the petition for modification. [5] We do not perceive that the legislature, in its enactment of F.S., Section 61.14, F.S.A., ever intended that a proceeding for modification of a final judgment of dissolution relating to child support payments, if filed in the circuit court of a county other than where the order or judgment sought to be modified was...

...On hearing thereon the court granted the order now on appeal, relieving the husband from paying further premiums on said life insurance policy. The determinative question here is whether the agreement entered into by the parties was a property settlement, and therefor not subject to modification under § 61.14 Fla....

...e was to afford the wife an extra measure of protection. Since a divorce decree may be subject to modification under certain circumstances [Cf. Salomon v. Salomon, Fla. 1967, 196 So.2d 111; Underwood v. Underwood, Fla. 1953, 64 So.2d 281; Fla. Stat. § 61.14, F.S.A.], the above-quoted language was intended to provide "the best of two worlds" for Beatrice....

...llee filed in the Escambia County Circuit Court a motion seeking to modify the child support payments as well as to alter the child custody arrangements of the final judgment of dissolution. Jurisdiction and venue were alleged under Florida Statutes § 61.14, which provides: When the parties have entered into ......

...County Circuit Court lacked both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant also filed a motion to transfer the action to Bradford County, where the cause of action arose and where the court had continuing jurisdiction. Relying primarily on § 61.14, the trial court denied both of appellant's motions. The circumstances of this case seem to present a conflict between § 61.14 and common law jurisdictional rules....

...In addition, the Bradford Court has continuing jurisdiction for the enforcement of its decree. In this case, a proceeding to enforce the original judgment was pending when the appellee filed in a different circuit a motion to modify the decree. On the other hand, § 61.14 provides that motions to modify support payments may be brought in the county where either of the parties reside even though the original decree was entered in another county. Sikes v. Sikes, 286 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). The apparent conflict between § 61.14 and the jurisdictional rules governing child custody has already been resolved, however, by this Court....

...dy question which appellant has raised, this entire controversy should be determined by that court. It is illogical that one circuit court determine modification of child support while another, at the same time, determines child custody. Id. at 833. Section 61.14 is not in conflict with the holding in Elliott. The legislature did not intend that § 61.14 require a court to take jurisdiction in all circumstances; under § 61.14, the court only "has jurisdiction to make orders as equity requires ......

...making an equitable determination of either part impossible, equity requires that only one circuit entertain the matter-the circuit where the original decree was rendered. Even if the modification motion in this case had not involved child custody, § 61.14 could not justify the Escambia Court's retention of the proceeding in regard to a motion to modify support payments....

...urt in order to move for a continuance. With viable enforcement proceedings pending in Bradford County, the Escambia Court should not have retained jurisdiction of a petition to modify the same decree which the Bradford Court was seeking to enforce. Section 61.14 may not be manipulated to escape or ignore enforcement proceedings pending in a different county. Using the terminology of § 61.14 again, equity would require that the Escambia Court give deference to the Bradford County action....

...After a hearing, the chancellor ruled that the alimony award was not modifiable and denied the petition as amended. Edward basically contends that the chancellor committed error in holding that the agreement was not subject to modification pursuant to Section 61.14 Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ncial ability to make the payments as required by the trial court. If, in fact, the financial circumstances of the respondent-husband have changed since the hearing, he always has the opportunity to seek modification of the judgment pursuant to F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A....

...reement and the time of the hearing. Posner v. Posner, 257 So.2d 530, 533-34 (Fla. 1972); Posner v. Posner, 233 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1970); Singer v. Singer, 318 So.2d 438, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Bailey v. Bailey, 300 So.2d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). See § 61.14, Fla....

...Former Wife. See Bentzoni v. Bentzoni, 442 So.2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)." Accordingly, the court ordered the termination of the temporary rehabilitative alimony and ruled as moot the former wife's motion for contempt based on arrearages in alimony. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1987), governs the modification of alimony orders....

...ient during or at least by the end of the prescribed period, and in that sense presupposes that the receiving spouse will experience a change in circumstances. Rehabilitative alimony can be modified or terminated in accordance with the provisions of section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...Maas, 438 So.2d 1068; Kissinger v. Mason, 436 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Frye v. Frye, 385 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Cf. Blackmon v. Blackmon, 307 So.2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Considering a motion for termination or modification of rehabilitative alimony under section 61.14 where the original award did not specify termination thereof upon remarriage, the court in Frye said: However, since rehabilitative alimony is paid for a specific purpose not necessarily related to the recipient spouse's remarriage, it...

...ent, but the monetary value or extent of that support is not reflected in the record. The extent of such support is a fact that must be ascertained and considered in terminating, reducing, or confirming the amount of the rehabilitative alimony under section 61.14 and Schneider v. Schneider, supra . There is no statutory provision or case authority for the proposition that the changed circumstances under section 61.14 require as a predicate to modification a showing that the cohabitation relationship with the new mate, or de facto husband, has resulted in a net economic gain to the recipient spouse....

...ily relied upon by the trial judge in reaching a decision. Nor do we determine, without reviewing the substance of each witness's testimony, that the evidence actually adduced wholly fails to establish a change of circumstances within the meaning of section 61.14....

...find no abuse of discretion and accordingly, we affirm the award of permanent alimony. Id. Any substantial change in circumstances which may occur in the future can, of course, be brought to the attention of the court for modification of this award. § 61.14(1), Fla....

...If in a future petition for modification, the husband can prove a substantial reduction in his income since the final decree, which reduction can reasonably be expected to remain so for the foreseeable future, the trial court would be obligated to reduce the alimony and/or child support awards herein under Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1975), even though there has been no change in the position or reduction in the financial needs of the wife and minor children....

...See §§ 61.30(1)(a), 61.30(1)(b), Fla.Stat.; Matthews v. Matthews, 677 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1996). The existence of a settlement agreement does not result in the placement of a heavier burden of proof on the party moving for modification, at least not when an increase is sought. See Section 61.14(7), Fla....

...Clearly, the trial court violated this rule by finding that the former husband's testimony was not credible. *1232 Where the "circumstances or the financial ability of either party changes" either party may apply to the circuit court for an order decreasing or increasing the amount of alimony. § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

prerequisite to any change in support obligations, see § 61.14, Fla. Stat.—and it also concluded that the ex-husband

...f this court." We affirm. The husband's basic position is that the original final judgment which only awarded rehabilitative alimony for a set period, contained no provision for the court's continuing jurisdiction. Consequently, he argues that under Section 61.14(1) of the Florida Statutes (1979) the Court only retains jurisdiction if "......

...by basic rules of fairness. Camus v. Prokosch, 882 So.2d 428, 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). One of the most basic rules of fairness is that a court cannot order a parent to pay child support which that parent cannot afford to pay. *176 As Florida Statute section 61.14(5)(a) states: When a court of competent jurisdiction enters an order for the payment of alimony or child support or both, the court shall make a finding of the obligor's imputed or actual present ability to comply with the order....

...hs for alimony and three months for payment of medical expenses. The appellee responds that she has failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed reversible error. Prospective modification of alimony judgments was permitted under the old law, § 61.14, Fla....

...at, that is all." In presenting this line of reasoning both appellant and appellee agree, as this court does, that in the usual case a wealthy husband is under no duty to support his young ex-wife indefinitely. It is our view that the new statute in § 61.14 continues to allow modification of alimony, particularly based on changed circumstances in a manner analogous to that of the prior enactments....

...termination of the twenty-six weeks period is therefore incorrect. Furthermore, under terms of the order appealed, she is entitled to make application for modification after the twenty-six week period. This is clearly authorized by the new statute, § 61.14(1), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "61.14 Modification of alimony judgments; agreements, etc....

...Del Vecchio, 143 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1962). Therefore, Husband was not required to demonstrate either a full and frank disclosure or a general and approximate knowledge of the character and extent of the marital property. Id. Our greatest concern involves the issue of modification. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1993), vests the circuit courts of this state with the power and jurisdiction to modify antenuptial agreements based upon a material change in circumstances occurring after execution of the agreement....

...n law) duty and contract as to an amount cannot limit the duty imposed by law and the legal duty of parental support is always subject to contract enforcement, any contract provision to the contrary notwithstanding." Holland, 602 So.2d at 654. Under section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1993), the court has the power to modify an agreement for support payments for a minor child whenever there is a change of circumstances in the needs and abilities of the parties....

...retion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). Of course, the husband can apply to the trial court for a modification in the periodic alimony should an improvement in the wife's condition result in a substantial change of circumstances. § 61.14(1), Fla....

...dditional child support. During the April 1968 hearing, which is part of the record, the trial judge stated that the order of December 1967 made the period from final decree to December 1967 res judicata as to additional child support. [3] *699 F.S. Section 61.14, F.S.A....

...The provisions of the stipulated agreement and final judgment that alimony payments would continue "until the wife remarries or dies" are completely inconsistent with the notion that the parties intended a final, fixed lump-sum settlement that was not subject to further extension or modification pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes....

...unchanged circumstances" should the IRS not reduce his obligation. The opposite is the case. If the $1,000 payment is substantially lowered, the wife can then petition for a modification based on changed circumstances *276 and increased ability. See § 61.14, Fla....

...Both parties subsequently became residents of Florida. *416 Appellant Carole Muss filed suit in the Dade County Circuit Court in 1978 to have the New York divorce decree established and recognized as a judgment in the State of Florida, and to increase her alimony payments pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...ed the right to apply for modification of the agreement. It is from this order of dismissal that plaintiff has appealed. When a spouse seeks modification of a previous separation agreement or judicial award of alimony, Florida courts are governed by Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979). Section 61.14(1) provides in relevant part: (1) When the parties have entered into ......

...rogating the traditional binding nature of such contractual undertakings. The Florida Supreme Court has upheld this statute against constitutional challenges on impairment of contract grounds. Frizzell v. Bartley, 372 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1979). Neither Section 61.14 nor the many Florida cases construing it differentiate between agreements executed in Florida and those from other states: Lopez v. Avery, 66 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1953); Lazar v. Lazar, 317 So.2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Lang v. Lang, 252 So.2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Thus, we have little doubt that the present agreement is subject to modification under Section 61.14 notwithstanding its foreign origin....

...nt shall be incorporated, with respect to alimony or support provisions, whether pursuant to § 1170 of the Civil Practice Act or any other provision or authority, ... (emphasis supplied). While it is clear that the circuit court has the power under Section 61.14 to modify alimony payments and thus abrogate the parties' prior express agreement, the issue here is whether a court's authority to modify such an agreement may be exercised when the plaintiff specifically agreed never to seek such modification....

...ndividual..." Turner v. Turner, 383 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (citations omitted). The sole remaining issue is whether the plaintiff below waived her right to seek modification by assenting to paragraph fourteen of the separation agreement. Section 61.14 is not, of course, specifically identified in paragraph fourteen of the agreement....

...§ 1170 of the Civil Practice Act of New York or any other provision or authority. (e.s.) In our view, the last clause of paragraph fourteen clearly contemplates a waiver of all statutory rights permitting modification, including those authorized by Section 61.14. Moreover, an examination of former CPA § 1170 convinces us that plaintiff intended to waive precisely that right granted her by Section 61.14, in that CPA § 1170 and Florida Statute 61.14 are substantially identical....

...We conclude that the trial court was correct in denying the modification petition since the plaintiff, by her own agreement, conclusively waived the right to petition for modification pursuant to any provision or authority. [1] In addition, we note that Section 61.14 authorizes modification of alimony, support or maintenance agreements, but not property settlements....

...We also note that in the final judgment, the trial court stated that it had the authority to modify the alimony provisions of the antenuptial agreement, a position advanced by appellee before this court. While the trial court does have such authority, granted by Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981), it is conditioned upon a showing that "the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed ......

...[1] At the conclusion of the final hearing the trial court entered an order terminating the separate maintenance payments and dissolving the marriage. Generally, modification of alimony, separate maintenance or support payments may be sought only by the parties to the decree. See Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...of independent legal proceedings by the United States I.R.S. for unpaid income taxes of appellee. [2] The trial court need not expressly reserve jurisdiction to modify an award of separate maintenance. See Kosch v. Kosch, 113 So.2d 547 (Fla. 1959); § 61.14, Fla....

...Being vested, it is not subject to modification, Turner v. Turner, 383 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Delehant v. Delehant, 383 So.2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Benson v. Benson, 369 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), even under the statutory provisions providing for modification of alimony. § 61.14, Fla....

...equacy vel non of the amount of child support was never determined, the only inquiries needed are those concerning adequacy and the father's ability to pay, and the question of a change of circumstances is simply irrelevant. [2] Nothing contained in Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1983), compels any contrary conclusion....

...jurisdiction to change the terms of a final judgment after it has lost jurisdiction of the judgment by the expiration of the time for filing a motion for rehearing. Batteiger v. Batteiger, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 602. Special exceptions are made by § 61.14, Fla....

...Should the trial court award permanent periodic alimony and should the appellee later retire and begin to receive additional benefits, or upon any other showing of changed circumstances, the appellant will have the option of petitioning the court at that time to modify his alimony payments. See § 61.14(1), Fla....

...Cort Frohlich of Wotitzky, Wotitzky, Johnson, Mandell & Batsel, Punta Gorda, for appellee. OVERTON, Justice. This case is before the Court on direct appeal from an order of the circuit court, Lee County, holding unconstitutional the authority to modify alimony and support prescribed in section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), [1] because it allows an impairment of *1372 the agreement made by the parties....

...The parties were divorced by order of the court dated October 11, 1962, but the agreement was not incorporated in the final divorce decree. On May 18, 1978, the husband sought a modification of the September 11, 1962, agreement in the circuit court pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977). The wife moved to dismiss the petition for modification on the ground that section 61.14 allows judicial modification of the contractual obligations of private parties in violation of both the state and federal constitutions. [3] The trial court granted the motion, directly holding the subject statute to be in violation of the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution. The first question we must answer is whether section 61.14 allows a modification of an agreement which was not incorporated in the divorce decree....

...635, 3 So.2d 345, 348 (1941); McCaskill v. Union Naval Stores Co., 59 Fla. 571, 574-75, 52 So. 961, 962 (1910). It necessarily follows that modification of the agreement cannot impair its obligations because the possibility of modification pursuant to section 61.14 is deemed to have been contemplated by the parties. We hold that section 61.14 is constitutional and allows modification of the settlement agreement even though it was not made part of the final decree. The order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate modification proceedings. It is so ordered. ENGLAND, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: When the parties have entered into, or hereafter enter into, an agreement for payments for, or instead of, support, maintenance, or alimony, whether in connection with a proceeding for dissolution...

...e for alimony. Since these payments were meant for the wife's periodic support and were bargained for in return for the waiver of all claims she may have had against the appellant, we consider them not subject to modification under the provisions of Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...d proved. Baker v. Baker, 394 So.2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Where, however, the circumstances or financial ability of either party has changed since execution of an agreement to pay alimony or child support, either party may apply for modification. § 61.14, Fla....

...This would violate the due process rights of contemnors and be specifically prohibited by the above decisions. Further, certain language in the rule imposes a rebuttable presumption that the contemnor has the present ability to comply with a prior order. The language apparently is derived from section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), which addresses support enforcement....

...and coercive or compensatory fines, and may order any other relief permitted by law. Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read "General Information for Pro Se Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes....

...order of his predecessor. Generally, in the absence of mistake or fraud, a successor judge cannot review, modify or reverse, upon the merits on the same facts, the final orders of his predecessor. Bailey v. Bailey, 204 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967). Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, provides that the circuit courts have jurisdiction to make orders as equity requires to decrease or increase the amount of alimony with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties. The jurisdiction of a successor judge is limited, for it has been held that while a successor judge could modify prospectively pursuant to Section 61.14, he could not "clarify" a final judgment of dissolution so that additional obligations would relate back to the time of the entry of the original judgment....

...It further provides that: "in any award of alimony, the court may order periodic payments or payments in lump sum or both." On February 9, 1977, Mr. McBride filed a second amended petition for modification, reciting that it was filed pursuant to Florida Statute 61.14, alleging a change in circumstances and praying that the court "substantially reduce or eliminate entirely alimony payments." In the meantime Judge Stewart had died and had been replaced by Judge Upchurch....

...itioner/Husband dies, or Respondent/Wife dies or remarries prior to the termination of the four year period, all remaining sums due for the period of this alimony award due and payable after occurrence of said event, will terminate." Florida Statute 61.14 provides in material part as follows: "When the parties have entered into * * * an agreement for payments for * * * alimony * * * or when a party is required by court order to make any payments, and the circumstances or the financial ability of...

...1st DCA 1974) we said: "We also point out that the word `permanent' is not necessarily synonymous with `forever'. Change of circumstances, including ability of self support after children are `grown and gone' clearly justifies, depending upon the circumstances of each case, modification of alimony judgments. (Florida Statute 61.14)" In my view, F.S. 61.14, when construed in pari materia with F.S....

...The husband filed exceptions to the master's findings. Each of the master's findings was overturned by the circuit judge. A threshold issue is whether the agreement incorporated into the parties' 1974 judgment of dissolution was modifiable, pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1973), or whether it constituted a true property settlement agreement within the contemplation of Salomon v....

...or modification. See Hodkin v. Perry, 88 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1956); Lyle v. Hunter, 102 Fla. 972, 136 So. 633 (1931); United Contractors, Inc. v. United Construction Corp., 187 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Since the agreement is modifiable, pursuant to Section 61.14, we next consider the husband's contention that alimony should be terminated as against the wife's claim that it should be increased....

...orcement of these obligations. The trial court erred in rejecting the master's report insofar as it recommended awarding these fees. By way of recapitulation, we observe that the property settlement agreement in this case was modifiable, pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1973); that the evidence clearly warranted the termination of alimony payments retroactive to the date of filing of the husband's petition for modification; that alimony arrearages accumulating prior to that date as a...

...As amended, effective July 1, 1992, the statute read: "The guidelines may provide the basis for proving a substantial change in circumstances upon which a modification of an existing order may be granted." § 61.30(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1992). A parallel provision in section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Accordingly, in determining whether Appellant, as movant, has met her evidentiary burden, the trial court still should consider any additional evidence, as to the children's needs or the parental ability to pay, that will assist it in making a proper final determination. § 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1993); Miller v....

...amount of child support because it shows an estimate of the parties concerned. *190 However, it is in no instance a bar to a modification otherwise appropriate under the statutory admonition "to make [such] orders as equity requires." See Fla. Stat. § 61.14....

...We direct that the trial court enter an order increasing the amount of child support to that amount and that the increase be made retroactive to the due date of the first payment due after the filing of the petition for modification. Reversed and remanded with directions. NOTES [1] Fla. Stat. § 61.14....

...ied subsequent to entry of a final divorce decree, and provisions in a final decree which are in the nature of alimony or support provisions, which may be modified subsequent to entry of a final decree of divorce in accordance with the provisions of § 61.14, F.S.A....

...Thereafter, the wife brought suit in Florida seeking to modify the separation agreement. This court applied New York law to interpret and evaluate the terms of the agreement. Significantly, the separation agreement did not contain a forum selection clause. The procedural issue of proper venue was determined by reviewing Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, which provides that an action regarding modification of agreements in connection with dissolution proceedings may be brought in Florida where either party is a resident of the State....

...The Former Husband also paid the health insurance for the new grandchild through the month of February, 2010. 9. Without the $3,100 monthly alimony payment from the Former Husband, the Former Wife testified that she cannot afford to make her mortgage payments on her residence.[ [1] ] With respect to the factors set forth in section 61.14(1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2008), the trial court found in pertinent part: b....

...Doss gives his money to the Former Wife, who deposits the money in her bank account and pays their respective bills from the money. Based on these and other findings, the circuit court ruled "that the Former Wife and Mr. Doss are in a supportive relationship as contemplated by Florida Statute 61.14(1)(b) and that their relationship predated the entry of the Final Judgment of Dissolution." The circuit court considered and rejected the Former Wife's argument that section 61.14(1)(b) was applicable only to a supportive relationship that began after the entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage....

...nth to $2100 per month retroactive to February 1, 2009. The Former Husband appealed the final judgment, and the Former Wife cross-appealed. [2] III. THE APPLICABLE STATUTE The parties' arguments center on the proper interpretation and application of section 61.14(1)(b). Subsection (b) of section 61.14(1) is sometimes referred to as "the cohabitation statute." [3] The statute provides as follows: (b)(1) The court may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorc...

...ed in this paragraph. The existence of a conjugal relationship, though it may be relevant to the nature and extent of the relationship, is not necessary for the application of the provisions of this paragraph. The legislature added subsection (b) to section 61.14(1) in 2005. Ch. 2005-168, § 1, at 1726-28, Laws of Fla. To address a petition for the reduction or termination of alimony under section 61.14(1)(b), the circuit court must employ an analysis that may involve four steps. First, the circuit court must "elicit the nature and extent of the relationship in question." § 61.14(1)(b)(2). To accomplish this task, the circuit court must consider and make findings concerning the factors listed in section 61.14(1)(b)(2) and any other pertinent circumstances....

...rt must determine "whether to reduce or terminate the Former Wife's alimony and, if to reduce it, by how much." Id. at 956. Here, the circuit court followed this four-step analysis in reaching its decision. IV. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW In a case under section 61.14(1)(b), appellate review of the circuit court's factual findings is limited to determining whether they are supported by competent, substantial evidence....

...guments are without merit and do not warrant further discussion. Furthermore, our disposition of the Former Wife's cross-appeal moots the Former Husband's arguments. The Former Wife makes two separate arguments. First, she focuses on the language of section 61.14(1)(b)(1) providing that the circuit court "may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed." (Em...

...band knew about the relationship. The Former Wife asserts that because her supportive relationship with Mr. Doss preceded the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the circuit court was not authorized to reduce or to terminate her alimony under section 61.14(1)(b)....

...Because we agree with the Former Wife's first argument, we need not address her second one. [4] VI. DISCUSSION Based on the plain language of the statute, we conclude that a supportive relationship that predates the divorce and the award of alimony does not authorize a reduction or termination of alimony under section 61.14(1)(b)....

...Fisheries Ass'n v. Dep't of Natural Res., 453 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984)). "If necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary." Id. (citing Gardner v. Johnson, 451 So.2d 477 (Fla.1984)). In accordance with section 61.14(1)(b), the reduction or termination of alimony based on the existence of a supportive relationship between the obligee and another person is authorized only if the relationship has existed " since the granting of a divorce and the award...

...*1131 The conclusion that we reach based on the plain language of the statute is confirmed by the placement of subsection (b), the so-called cohabitation statute, in the overall scheme of chapter 61. When the legislature enacted subsection (b) in 2005, it added the new law to section 61.14(1). Ch. 2005-168, § 1, at 1726-28, Laws of Fla. The subject of section 61.14(1) is the modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders....

...in circumstances cannot be accidental. The concept of supportive relationship involves—at its core—a change in circumstances. Baumann v. Baumann, 22 So.3d 719, 720-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Accordingly, we construe subsection (b) in pari materia with section 61.14(1)(a), which addresses the modification of alimony generally....

...formably to it, excepting as a different purpose is plainly shown. United States v. Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co., 291 U.S. 386, 396, 54 S.Ct. 443, 78 L.Ed. 859 (1934). The reading of subsection (b) of the statute in pari materia with the remainder of section 61.14(1) is particularly appropriate because the 2005 amendment adding subsection (b) merely codifies a special instance where the reduction or termination of alimony may be warranted. In pertinent part, section 61.14(1)(a) authorizes a modification of alimony when "the circumstances or the financial ability of either party changes." There are three fundamental requirements for obtaining a modification of alimony under section 61.14(1)(a): First, there must be a substantial change in circumstances....

...Thus a modification of alimony "can only be based on changed conditions occurring since entry of the prior award or modification thereto." Ferguson v. Ferguson, 921 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Hosford v. Hosford, 362 So.2d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) and § 61.14, Fla....

...d's direct appeal. On the cross-appeal, we hold that because the supportive relationship under review predated the divorce and the award of alimony, the circuit court was not authorized to reduce or terminate the Former Wife's alimony payments under section 61.14(1)(b)....

...An examination of the supreme court's opinion reviewing the district court's Bedell rationale demonstrates that it was only the first, and not the second, issue that resulted in the supreme court's holding. In Bedell, 583 So.2d 1005, the supreme court considered the application of section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1985), which states that alimony may be modified where an ex-spouse files a petition seeking a modification in alimony and where "the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed." The court c...

...sent society, as recognized by the UCCJA, is that a custody award may be modified by the circuit court in the county in which either the child or children and custodial parent or the non-custodial parent resides. We note, as we did in Marshall, that section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1987), pertaining to modification of alimony and child support awards, permits modification in the county in which either of the parties resides, see 404 So.2d at 1183, but no such authority exists under section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1987), pertaining to child custody awards....

...In our judgment, the present record simply does not indicate such an abuse of discretion. We would remind, for whatever it may be worth, that if the support provided by the final judgment proves inadequate as the children's ages increase, the trial court may always review the situation on a motion to modify under § 61.14, F.S....

...It has long been the policy of the courts of this state to base awards of permanent alimony on the needs of the wife and commensurate ability of the husband to pay for those needs. See, for example, Knox v. Knox, 159 Fla. 123, 31 So.2d 159, 160 (1947). The liberal provision for modification by Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975), contemplates that the actual present need should be the basis for an award of permanent alimony....

...However, Judge Gunther, in her dissent, stated that the award of attorney's fees was authorized by section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1989), as this postjudgment proceeding constituted a proceeding for modification of an order of *1261 child support brought pursuant to section 61.14(1)....

...was required by court order to make child support payments. P.A.G.'s subsequent petition for modification of the child support order was not a "determination of paternity proceeding," and, therefore, not governed by chapter 742. Thus, we agree with Judge Gunther that we must look to the plain meaning of section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1989), in order to determine if the award of attorney's fees was proper in this case. Section 61.14 [2] provides for the "[e]nforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders." The statute does not limit this enforcement and modification authority to court-ordered payments arising from dissolution or separate maintenance proceedings....

...t has jurisdiction to modify an agreement, whether in connection with a dissolution or separate maintenance proceeding or with a voluntary property settlement, and also has jurisdiction "when a party is required by court order to make any payments." Section 61.14(1), Fla....

..."The fact that the order for child support was entered as a result of [a] successful paternity suit does not alter the fact that it is simply an order for child support." P.A.G., 564 So.2d at 267 (Gunther, J., dissenting). Thus, P.A.G.'s petition for modification of the child support order is governed by section 61.14(1), and attorney's fees were properly awarded pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1989), which authorizes the court to "order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney's fees, suit money, and the cost to the other party o...

...GRIMES, J., dissents with an opinion. GRIMES, Justice, dissenting. Try as I will, I cannot reach the conclusion that a petition for modification of the child support requirements of an order determining paternity is governed by chapter 61, Florida Statutes (1989). That portion of section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1989), which authorizes modification "when a party is required by court order to make any payments," is referring to payments arising out of judgments of dissolution of marriage or settlement agreements....

...e legislature created section 742.045, Florida Statutes (1991), which specifically authorizes an award of attorney's fees in any proceeding under chapter 742, including enforcement and modification proceedings. See ch. 91-246, § 7, Laws of Fla. [2] Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1989), governs the enforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders. The pertinent part of section 61.14 provides: (1) When the parties enter into an agreement for payments for, or instead of, support, maintenance, or alimony, whether in connection with a proceeding for dissolution or separate maintenance or with any voluntary property set...

...change in circumstances" test. The circuit court's order in this case did not address Mrs. Antepenko's decreased need, although that issue was extensively covered in the testimony. Instead, the court focused on Mr. Antepenko's ability to pay. Under section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1997), if the "circumstance or the financial ability of either party changes," either party may move to modify the support obligation....

considered in modification proceedings under section 61.14.”). We are unable to conclude based on the hearing

...estions of law and fact concerning the trial court's denial of the former husband's motion to reduce or terminate alimony, which was based upon the trial court's conclusion that the former wife was not engaged in a "supportive relationship" under section 61.14(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005)); see also King v....

...2d DCA 2012) (applying the standards of review espoused in Buxton). We conclude that the mixed standard applied by this court in Buxton applies to a broader range of cases in which parties, such as Mr. Jarrard in this case, seek modification of alimony under section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2012). A mixed standard of review is actually performed by an appellate court as a sequence of two or more distinct reviews....

...on. Our mandate does not prevent the trial court from updating the evidence on remand. We observe that the calculation of arrearage was based on a continuation of alimony at the $4200 per month level. If the trial court decides to modify alimony, section 61.14(1)(a) authorizes a modification retroactive to the date of the filing of the action. See also Thyrre v. Thyrre, 963 So. 2d 859, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In this case, section 61.14(1)(a) would appear to give the trial court discretion to adjust alimony to the date of the filing of the second amended supplemental petition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. MORRIS and BLACK, JJ.,...

...a final judgment. The trial court was of the opinion that because the word "temporary" preceded the words "rehabilitative alimony" that it was without jurisdiction to entertain the Petition for Modification. With this we disagree. Florida Statutes, § 61.14, provides as follows: Modification of alimony judgments; agreements, etc....

...provisions of this judgment. The appellee contends that the court having retained jurisdiction only to enforce the provisions of the judgment, does not have jurisdiction to modify such judgment as to rehabilitative alimony. As we view Florida Stat. 61.14, the statute itself confers upon the court jurisdiction to modify the provisions of the final judgment as to rehabilitative or permanent alimony under the appropriate circumstances....

...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. January 14, 1972. *554 Ledford A. Parnell, Jr., and Richard H. Coburn, of Law Office of Richard H. Cobourn, Hollywood, for appellant. Henry L. Kaye, of Simons & Schlesinger, Hollywood, for appellee. OWEN, Judge. Pursuant to the provision of Section 61.14, F.S....

...raduated from high school, despite the fact that she married prior to graduation. The former husband could have sought a reduction in child support based upon a substantial change in circumstances upon his daughter's marriage before graduation under section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1993), but he failed to do so. Rather, he erroneously contended that his daughter's marriage automatically terminated his support obligation. Moreover, reduction in child support would be permitted under section 61.14(1) only if it were shown that it would be in the best interests of the child, which the former husband neither pleaded nor proved....

...a trial court to modify rehabilitative alimony when the circumstances of the parties have changed. *889 Lockhart v. Lockhart, Fla.App. 1974, 293 So.2d 754; Stamm v. Stamm, Fla.App. 1972, 266 So.2d 413; Melin v. Melin, Fla. App. 1972, 265 So.2d 414; § 61.14(1), Fla....

...ree to make child support payments until the child reaches his twenty-first birthday. The only method by which a husband may absolve himself of such obligation of support prior to the child reaching twenty-one is if he files a motion to modify under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), and is able to show that the child has since become married or self-supporting....

...cannot be modified unless the income of the husband (or former husband) be shown to have materially decreased. We intended no such holding. The confusion probably stems from the technically imprecise language of our modification statute itself, F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A....

...HRS only appeals that portion of the order requiring it to remove the case from the intercept program. We reverse. Unpaid child support is a vested property right. See generally, Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) and cases cited therein. Past due installments become judgments by operation of law. § 61.14(5), Fla....

...earnings at the current level in five years when the youngest child reaches the age of majority. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue. If there is a later change in circumstances, the issue may be addressed at a modification proceeding pursuant to section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...ity to pay alimony and child support arrearages by showing that, due to circumstances beyond his control which arose after the final judgment of dissolution was entered, he no longer had the ability to meet his support obligations. Id. at 1278-1279; § 61.14(5), Fla....

...ipts, or any other related documentation. He did not. Therefore, there was no basis upon which the trial court could have found that the husband was unable to pay. The trial court properly found the husband in contempt pursuant to the presumption in section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...ve or compensatory fines, and may order any other relief permitted by law. Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read "General Information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure....

...Certainly there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of appellant's request. The court had no jurisdiction to consider custody. As to dismissal of Count 1, since appellee is a resident of Volusia County, the circuit court of that county under § 61.14, Fla....

...of Health and Rehabilitative Services on Behalf of Davis v. Canady, 473 So.2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Robinson v. State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services on Behalf of Robinson, 473 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), dismissed, 478 So.2d 53 (Fla. 1985). See also § 61.14(5), Fla....

...Although there has been no material change since the prior modification, the latest order requires a further reduction. Appellant correctly states that modification can only be based on changed conditions occurring since the prior award. Florida Statute § 61.14....

...circumstances necessitating reformulation in the method of payment, it may be necessary for the trial court to reconsider and formulate a new plan for payment of the lump sum award to the appellee. See Sapp v. Sapp, 275 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); § 61.14, Fla....

...." § 88.012, Fla. Stat. (1993). We hold, therefore, that section 63.172, Florida Statutes, does not discharge child support arrearages that accrued prior to the decree of adoption. Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings. NOTES [1] Section 61.14(6)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that when, as here, child support payments are made through the Central Depository, any payments that are due and unpaid are delinquent, and following proper notice to the obligor, become a final judgment by operation of law....

...Appellant contends that the Sarasota County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for change of custody. He is clearly correct. Wells v. Ward, 314 So.2d 138 (Fla. 1975); Bailey v. Malone, 389 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Poliak v. Poliak, 235 So.2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979), which permits the parties to a dissolution to apply for modification of alimony or support in the county in which either of them resides, omits any reference to changes of custody....

...Each party shall bear their own attorneys' fees. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] The trial court awarded monthly alimony in this nominal amount merely to reserve jurisdiction to award a larger amount at such time in the future when, and if, the husband's income increases. See § 61.14(1), Fla....

...by both parties. The wife appeals. II The wife raises various points on appeal which challenge the trial court's refusal to increase her alimony. Her central contention, however, is that she was entitled to such an increase as a matter of law under Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1985), based solely on the husband's stipulated substantial change in his financial circumstances for the better since the final judgment; this is particularly true, she urges, because her needs were not met by the original alimony award and are not currently being met....

...due to the ravages of inflation and other causes, and that, accordingly, this showing, when combined with the increased wealth of the husband, entitled her as a matter of law to an increase in alimony. We find no merit in these contentions. A Under Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1985), a spouse who is the recipient of an alimony award in a final judgment of marriage dissolution incorporating a prior settlement agreement, as here, "may apply to the circuit court ......

...denied, 459 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1984). This rule, however, is to be distinguished from the related rule recognized in other Florida cases that a substantial increase in the paying spouse's financial circumstances is, in itself, a sufficient legal basis under Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1985), to justify an increase in the amount of child support....

...Boggs, 602 So.2d 1250 (Fla.1992), appellant contends that the burden of proof to support a downward modification of a child support order is greater where such order was based upon an agreement between the parties than where the support award was not based upon such agreement. Relying on section 61.14(7), Florida Statutes, which was added in 1993, appellee argues that the burden of proof is the same regardless of any agreement. Section 61.14(7), Florida Statutes (1995), provides: "When modification of an existing order of support is sought, the proof required to modify a settlement agreement and the proof required to modify an award established by court order shall be the s...

...Overbey, 698 So.2d 811, 814 (Fla.1997) (emphasis added) (citing Tietig). Like the instant case, the Overbey decision was concerned with a 1995 request for reduction in child support. It must be presumed that the supreme court's ruling was made with awareness of section 61.14(7), which had been in effect since July 1, 1993. Thus, it appears that the supreme court has decided that section 61.14(7) does not apply to a petition to reduce child support....

...1 (Fla. 1st DCA *244 1996) (citation omitted). [1] Contrast State, Dept. of Revenue v. Sumblin, 675 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (settlement agreement does not result in heavier burden of proof on party moving for increase in child support, citing section 61.14(7) and Matthews )....

...The Tietig majority concluded that "the heavy burden rule is inapplicable only when an increase in child support is sought." Whether there is still a heavier burden for the parent seeking a downward modification in child support where the existing order embodies a settlement agreement is an open question after enactment of [section 61.14(7)]....

...With permanent alimony, as called for here, awarded in this case, if, in spite of the unlikelihood that the wife could become adequately self-supporting, she does in fact become so, or substantially so, then on the basis of that change of circumstances of the parties the husband could apply under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977) for modification of the judgment as to the alimony awarded therein....

filed five months later); see also § 61.14(1), Fla. Stat. (2009 & 2010) (providing that upon

...nd to make such child support payments until the child reaches the age of twenty-one. We hold that such a pre-1973 divorce decree does impose such an obligation of support on the husband unless the husband is able to show on a motion to modify under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), that the child has become married or self-supporting prior to the child's twenty-first birthday....

...ree to make child support payments until the child reaches his twenty-first birthday. The only method by which a husband may absolve himself of such obligation of support prior to the child reaching twenty-one is if he files a motion to modify under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), and is able to show that the child has since become married or self-supporting....

...Although the husband contends that his eldest son is now self-supporting by virtue of his scholarship as a freshman at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida, the husband filed no motion to modify the child support payments based on such ground under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), and made no clear showing in the record that the son is now self-supporting by virtue of his scholarship....

...He cannot use an order finding him in contempt as a back door to challenging the propriety of the unappealed order awarding alimony. See Driggers v. Pearson, 141 Fla. 256, 192 So. 881 (1940). In his second argument, he claims that the order of contempt is invalid for failure to state reasons for granting the motion. See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla....

...The agreement further provided that each of the parties released the other from all claims that he or she may have by reason of the marriage relationship or otherwise. It also required the husband to be responsible for the financial care, support, maintenance and education of the minor children of the parties. Pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975), the circuit court has jurisdiction to modify alimony or support payments even though the obligation for same stems from a voluntary property settlement agreement....

...Magistrate or this Court arising from the family law case at hand." A party's property rights, if determined by a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, are fixed as a matter of law by the judgment, unless there is a reservation of jurisdiction. § 61.14, Fla....

...Appellant seeks review of an order denying his petition to modify certain provisions of a property settlement agreement pertaining to alimony. We affirm the order appealed from as to the refusal to modify the provision for payment of lump sum alimony since that character of alimony is not subject to modification pursuant to § 61.14 F.S....

...the dissolution of marriage. To justify a modification of alimony or support payments the change of circumstances including financial circumstances of one or both of the parties must be substantial. Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1954); See Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1975); Quinn v....

...the decree, to make child support payments until the child meets one of those tests. The only method by which a husband may absolve himself of such obligation of support prior to the child reaching twenty-one is if he files a motion to modify under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), and is able to prove the child has since become married or self-supporting....

...In our view, and notwithstanding that jurisdiction is not retained, so long as the provisions of a final degree relating to ` any payments' ... are executory in whole or in part the court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a modification within the scope thereof." (emphasis theirs) Under Florida Statute § 61.14 the trial court has jurisdiction as a matter of law to modify the alimony awarded in the prior judgment. Under § 61.14, it is not necessary that the trial court have expressly retained jurisdiction in the prior order for there to be a subsequent modification of the alimony awarded. The statute itself confers jurisdiction [1] as follows: Fla. Stat. § 61.14, Modification of alimony judgments; agreements; etc....

...e are not prescribed by statute, rule or case law, and should not be adopted here. I respectfully dissent. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED MILLS, Chief Judge. Appellee (wife) petitions for a rehearing contending that we misapprehended the impact of Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, that our decision is in direct conflict with Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and that we overlooked that appellant (husband) received notice of the hearing and was represented by counsel. We did not misapprehend Section 61.14....

...alimony provided for in the agreement or order." The final judgment awarded rehabilitative alimony. It declined to award permanent alimony although the wife sought this type alimony. The judgment did not retain jurisdiction to award future permanent alimony. The wife petitioned for an increase in rehabilitative alimony. This Section 61.14 permits....

...The law is clear *191 that modification proceedings are a continuation of the prior proceeding. It is unnecessary that the court expressly reserve jurisdiction to make future awards as there is continuing jurisdiction as a matter of law. Florida Statute section 61.14; Trawick, Practice and Procedures, 7-7 (1975). The judgment below should be affirmed. NOTES [1] Cantor v. Cantor, 306 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1975): "As we view Florida Stat. 61.14, the statute itself confers upon the court jurisdiction to modify the provisions of the final judgment as to rehabilitative or permanent alimony under the appropriate circumstances ..." See, Trawick, Practice and Procedure § 7-7 (1975): "Many...

...Presumably the wife concluded that the court already had jurisdiction by virtue of the prior dissolution proceedings and hence the claim needed no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it. It is true that a trial court has continuing jurisdiction to modify child support obligations. § 61.14, Fla....

...beneficiary's interest. [6] We agree that this intermediate view is unnecessary when applied to alimony set by a court after hearing. Such an award is presumptively reasonable and is always subject to modification in light of changed circumstances. § 61.14(1), Fla....

...ing reference is that we do NOT deem it a legally significant circumstance whether the "modification" is attempted prior to, at the time of, or subsequent to approval of the agreement by the trial court and its incorporation into the final judgment. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes, provides: Modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or judgments....

...m alimony. The cases uniformly hold to the contrary. The rule that emerges from consideration of this issue is that a provision for a lump sum payment, whether by agreement of the parties or by court order, is not subject to modification pursuant to section 61.14....

...Zimmer v. Zimmer, 328 So.2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). See also Philipose v. Philipose, 431 So.2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (Since lump sum alimony involves payment of a fixed amount, it is a vested right and, as such, is not subject to modification, even under section 61.14, Florida Statutes)....

...the judgment in 1970, she had become self-supporting by 1977, and presently her annual income exceeds by several thousand dollars per year her monetary needs for support. In Goldin v. Goldin, supra, this court, speaking through Judge Hubbart, said: "Section 61.14(1) Florida Statutes (1975), gives a trial court jurisdiction to enter orders as equity requires upon a petition for modification of a separation and property settlement agreement as incorporated in a divorce decree based on a change in financial circumstances on the part of either party to the marriage dissolution....

...installments of the alimony from and after the date of the filing of our mandate in the circuit court, subject however to a continuing right in the wife to petition the circuit court for further modification of the judgment, *823 as authorized under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), to require resumption of payment of alimony, by reason of some subsequent change in the wife's circumstances making the same necessary or proper....

...a Statutes of 1941, F.S.A." Notwithstanding anything said herein, the $75 per month allowed the Respondent as alimony by the Nevada Court is an amount always subject to modification by the circuit courts of Florida pursuant to the provisions of F.S. Section 61.14, F.S.A....

...The court made its ruling retroactive to the date of the judgment dissolving the marriage. We hold that the court did err in its modification of the final judgment of dissolution. The former husband argues that the modification was properly made pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 61.14....

due regard to the changed circumstances . . . .” § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017). However, the appellate

...he wife's mother the payments would be reduced to $20,000 a year. In reference to the payments, if they are for support, maintenance or alimony, either party may apply for a judgment decreasing or increasing the amount provided for in the agreement. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...of his estate, if at the time of his death he is unmarried, or if he remarries and remains married at his death to provide her with at least 50% of his estate. This contract between the parties is not subject to modification under the provisions of Section 61.14, and the trial court erred in ordering a reduction of the amount of the escrow....

...ircumstances and explain why the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate). We also hold that the court abused its discretion by declaring the increase in child support retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition for modification. Section 61.14(1)(a) states that "the court may modify an order of support ......

...The circuit court has "the authority to modify child support ... so long as the modification is requested and supported by ... evidence," Norwood v. Norwood, 466 So.2d 5, 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), justifying modification. E.g., Guadine v. Guadine, 474 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); § 61.14(1), Fla....

...pport need only prove a substantial change ... similar to that required ... [where] judgments ... do not incorporate a settlement agreement"); Hyatt v. Hyatt, 672 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Montante v. Montante, 627 So.2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); § 61.14(7), Fla....

...hat were "long standing and chronic." As Burdick confirms, while these facts may have been sufficient to support a nominal, permanent alimony award (effectively reserving jurisdiction for future modifications), they do not mandate such an award. See § 61.14, Fla....

...No such allegations were presented to the trial court. Appellant's claim for modification relies exclusively on the changed circumstances of the parties. Although changed circumstances may support a modification of child support, Coffin v. Coffin, 368 So.2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see also § 61.14, Fla....

found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family

...The order dismissing the complaint did not give the plaintiff the right to amend. We therefore bypass any contention that it was the duty of the plaintiff to attach a copy of the judgment of divorce in order for the court to determine whether this is an action pursuant to § 61.14, Fla....

...2d DCA 1988); Torres v. Torres, 561 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The 1989 Liberty County petition filed by Husband, however, contained no custody issue, and sought only support and reimbursement to HRS of past AFDC payments. According to both Bailey and section 61.14, F.S., then, the petition could have been properly filed in either Brevard, Bay, or Liberty Counties....

...Mallardi's life except that financially he and his family have concocted a ruse to get him out of paying his alimony." The former husband argues that the record does not support the finding that he has the *383 present ability to pay $88,000 to get out of jail. In 1992 the legislature amended section 61.14 to provide the following: "When a court of competent jurisdiction enters an order for the payment of alimony or child support or both, the court shall make a finding of the obligor's imputed or actual present ability to comply with the order....

...This presumption is adopted as a presumption under s. 90.302(2) to implement the public policy of this state that children shall be maintained from the resources of their parents and as provided for in s. 409.2551, and that spouses be maintained as provided for in s. 61.08." [emphasis supplied] § 61.14(5)(a), Fla.Stat....

...The evidence code provides for two kinds of rebuttable presumptions: one affecting the burden of producing evidence, which vanishes upon the introduction of contrary evidence; [3] and another affecting the burden of proof, which remains throughout the proceeding. [4] The legislature has made clear in section 61.14(5)(a) that the presumption of ability to pay the purge amount is of the latter kind and therefore affects the burden of proof....

...rty" and "[a]ll sources of income available to either party"). [6] Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), is not to the contrary. Both the plurality and the concurring judges in that case, a clear majority, necessarily concluded that section 61.14(5)(a) was not applicable because it was adopted after entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage fixing the child support. There is no question that section 61.14(5)(a) is applicable in this case and controls the burden of proof.

...ad failed to pay the cost of living increases since November 1974 and had refused since July 1975 to make any alimony payments. Roger answered that he was in arrears; but had borrowed sufficient funds to pay the arrearage and petitioned, pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975), for modification seeking to terminate the alimony payments on the ground of changed circumstances....

...ffective as of the date of the filing of the petition for modification due to the drastic change in the financial circumstances of both parties. We conclude that the trial court should have so terminated the aforesaid alimony provisions and reverse. Section 61.14(1) Florida Statutes (1975), gives a trial court jurisdiction to enter orders as equity requires upon a petition for modification of a separation and property settlement agreement as incorporated in a divorce decree based on a change in financial circumstances on the part of either party to the marriage dissolution....

...t ability. See Walker, 727 So.2d at 361. A court is required to consider all assets and property interests of the obligor, including cash as well as real property and business interests. See Mallardi v. Jenne, 721 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); § 61.14, Fla....

...child support depending upon whether the support provisions are entered by order of the court or stipulated to by the parties. Vanden Bosch v. Elkins, 419 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See Lacy v. Lacy, 413 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); §§ 61.13, 61.14, Fla....

...because the subject matter of the contract is child support that the father is permitted to attempt to change the clear, unequivocal provisions of the contract by which he agreed to assume full financial responsibility for raising the children. See § 61.14, Fla. Stat. (1983) (gives court authority to modify support agreements); Frizzell v. Bartley, 372 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1979) (holding section 61.14 does not violate state and federal constitutional prohibitions against impairment of contractual obligations because the statute has been in existence since 1935 and, therefore, it is impliedly incorporated into contracts concerning support); O'Brien v. O'Brien, 424 So.2d 970, 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (the right to receive support belongs to the child and may not be waived by a parent). Since the father's right to modify the contractual obligations he undertook is derived through section 61.14, see Lacy; cf....

...Absent a substantial change in circumstances, a mere indication that it would be in the best interest of the children to have the mother pay child support is an insufficient basis to modify the support provisions agreed to by the parties. Lacy, 413 So.2d at 473-74; § 61.14, Fla....

...en's clothing store. In the order appealed, dated January 4, 1972, the lower court terminated the alimony after the April, 1972 alimony payment had been made, but reserved jurisdiction over future alimony during the minority of the child. Under F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A., relating to modification of alimony judgments and agreements, the court may consider a change in the circumstances of the wife as well as the husband; Rogers v....

...hone & Telegraph Co. v. Pinkerman, Fla. 1950, 47 So.2d 547; Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. Pittman, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 600; Corbett v. General Engineering & Machinery Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 879, 37 So.2d 161, and Vol. 2, Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Section 61.14....

...In 2002, the former wife began cohabiting with James Stewart. One year later, the parties consented to an agreed order reducing alimony to $1,550 per month. Two years after that, the former husband brought this proceeding to reduce or terminate his alimony obligation, citing the recent enactment of section 61.14(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...The former wife countered with a request to return the amount of alimony to its original level of $2,775 per month. The trial court judge entered a final order denying termination and any reduction of alimony and granting the former wife's request. In 2005, the Florida Legislature enacted section 61.14(1)(b) which permits a court to reduce or terminate an award of alimony "upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed between the obligee...

...This paragraph recognizes only that relationships do exist that provide economic support equivalent to a marriage and that alimony terminable on remarriage may be reduced or terminated upon the establishment of equivalent equitable circumstances as described in this paragraph. § 61.14(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2005). The standard of review in determining what constitutes a "supportive relationship" as contemplated by section 61.14 is de novo since it requires the court to interpret the applicable law....

...Buxton, 963 So.2d 950, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). We review the trial court's factual findings to determine whether they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Buxton, 963 So.2d at 953. In Buxton, the Second District Court of Appeal discussed the new provision of section 61.14(1)(b) and determined that financial support is but one factor to be considered in concluding whether a "supportive relationship" exists....

...The *307 appellate court concluded that the factors presented in Buxton established that the couple was in a long-term relationship that provided both economic and social support equivalent to that of a marriage. Id. The court therefore determined that a "supportive relationship" as contemplated by section 61.14(1)(b) existed. Id. In reaching its decision, the court relied in part on legislative material that section 61.14(b) is meant to "provide an alternate method to a court to reduce or terminate alimony, without first having to find that there has been a change in financial circumstance, as is the case in current law." Id....

...152 at 12 (February 25, 2005)). Unlike the Second District Court of Appeal in Buxton which determined that the economic impact on the obligee was only part of the analysis in determining if there is a supportive relationship, the trial court in this matter concluded that section 61.14(1)(b) requires a relationship economically equivalent to a marriage. We adopt the reasoning of the trial court. The statute itself is clear in this regard. As a matter of law, section 61.14(1)(b) requires the court to determine if an alimony obligee has entered into a relationship that provides the economic support equivalent to a marriage, and if so, the court may reduce or terminate alimony as the equities require. Section 61.14(1)(b) is actually a codification of prior case law which held that, in post dissolution matters, cohabitation can be a basis for reduction or termination of alimony awards....

...In the cohabitation cases, courts were required to determine whether and how the new living situation impacted the alimony recipient's financial condition and the continued need for alimony. Zeballos, 951 So.2d at 974; McBride v. McBride, 352 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Section 61.14(1)(b)2....

...ssets together, or supported each other's children. The court may rely on any factor listed, as well as others not listed, either alone or in combination, as the circumstances may suggest to find that their cohabitation is a supportive relationship. § 61.14(1)(b)2., Fla....

...From the facts outlined above, a reasonable person could conclude that this was not a supportive relationship. We should thus defer to the trial court and affirm for that reason. See Zeballos, 951 So.2d at 974 (applying abuse of discretion standard of review to trial court's decision to reduce alimony under section 61.14); see also generally Canakaris v....

...review when a judge exercises his discretionary power in determining alimony). Furthermore, even if we ruled that a supportive relationship existed in this case, it would still be within the trial court's discretion to refuse termination of alimony. Section 61.14(1)(b) provides that a court " may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of the divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed between the obligee and a person with whom the obligee resides." (Emphasis supplied)....

...Permanent periodic alimony was designed to provide the necessities of life to the former spouse as they were established by the marriage of the parties. Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So.2d 905, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). If there is a change of circumstances *309 either party may apply for an increase or decrease in alimony. § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

...There is no balancing of equities. The question posed in this case is whether, based on the evidence at trial, the cohabitation of the former spouse without a formal marriage should, as a matter of law, also compel the termination of alimony. Before section 61.14(1)(b) was adopted in 2005, the courts had held that alimony could not be terminated based on the argument that cohabitation is a de facto marriage, and that it may be only modified....

...that Florida jurisprudence does not accord legal status to the concept of de facto marriage. . . . While unmarried cohabitation raises a presumption of changed circumstances, this factor alone will not support a reduction of alimony." 509 So.2d at 1144. Section 61.14(1)(b)—the new legislation adopted in 2005—provides the following: "The court may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed between the obligee and a person with whom the obligee resides." § 61.14(1)(b), Fla....

...One strong indicator is the statutory context. It is striking to compare the authority granted by the new statute with the previous statutory authority on modifying alimony. The new authority is, in the statute's words, the power to " reduce or terminate [e.s.] an award of alimony." § 61.14(1)(b). But in the subsection already dealing with modifying alimony generally—section 61.14(1)(a)—the precise authority granted states: "the court has jurisdiction to make orders as equity requires, with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child, decreasing, increasing, or confirming the amount of ... alimony provided for ...." [e.s.] The emphasized text in section 61.14(1)(a) quoted above is missing from the new one. Section 61.14(1)(b) does not refer to making such orders as equity requires....

...Without any legal basis for distinguishing between the two, the statute must mean that for purposes of terminating alimony there is no difference between marriage and cohabitation with support. With that recognition, we can perceive that the many possible meanings of may have been narrowed. As used in section 61.14(1)(b), the term may is now obviously much more compatible with the meaning in sense 5 of MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S definitions quoted above....

...Schneider, 52 So.2d 420 (Fla.1951) ("Where the periodic payments represent only the amounts the court decides are necessary to afford shelter, food and clothing from time to time for the quondam wife, her marriage to another ends the obligation."). Accordingly, section 61.14(1)(b)'s alternative of reducing alimony ("court may reduce or terminate"), applies only when some of the alimony previously awarded is not for support of the former spouse....

...This paragraph recognizes only that relationships do exist that provide economic support equivalent to a marriage and that alimony terminable on remarriage may be reduced or terminated upon the establishment of equivalent equitable circumstances as described in this paragraph." § 61.14(1)(b)3, Fla....

...If this woman and this man had solemnized this identical relationship with marriage—but without merging their separate assets and bank accounts into joint ownership—no Florida court would hesitate to hold as a matter of law that alimony should be ended. With section 61.14(1)(b), the result is now no different where, as here, they lack only the marriage certificate....

...527 (1947). [2] Comm'r of Internal Revenue v. Ickelheimer, 132 F.2d 660, 662 (2nd Cir.1943) [per Learned Hand, J.]. [3] John F. Manning, The Absurdity Doctrine, 116 HARV. L. REV. 2387, 2392-93 (2003). [4] See Ch. 2005-168, Laws of Fla., now codified as § 61.14(1)(b), Fla....

...Goldstein, Codifying Cohabitation as a Ground for Modification or Termination of Alimony—So What's New?, 80 FLA. BAR J. 45 (2006). [5] "The court shall give consideration, without limitation, to circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following . . . ." [e.s.] § 61.14(1)(b)....

...for the sake of justice, the word `may' means the same as `shall.' [c.o.] Again, permissive words in a statute respecting courts or officers are imperative in those cases where individuals have a right that the power conferred be exercised."). [11] § 61.14(1)(b)3. [12] § 61.14(1)(b)2.a. [13] § 61.14(1)(b). [14] See § 61.14(1)(b)2c ("The extent to which the obligee and the other person have ....

...vidence which establishes a substantial change in the circumstances of one or both parties which was not contemplated in the final judgment; and (d) the party seeking modification meets a heavier burden of proof than otherwise would be required. See § 61.14, Fla....

decrease under changed conditions as provided in section 61.14, Florida Statutes, as the parties are assumed

...[1] 385 So.2d at 1026. Accordingly, we reverse, vacate the order granting the motion to dismiss, remand the cause, and direct the trial court to exercise its jurisdiction with respect to the petition and conduct further proceedings *419 consistent with the dictates of section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...y synonymous with the word `forever'. Change of circumstances, including ability of self-support after children are `grown and gone' clearly justifies, depending upon the circumstances of each case, modification of alimony judgments (Florida Statute 61.14)." The judgment of the trial court granting permanent alimony is amply sustained by the record....

...After finding that a supportive relationship existed between the former wife and Mr. Bradford, the trial court denied both motions. From this order, the former husband appealed. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to reduce or terminate alimony payments. We agree and reverse. Section 61.14(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2006) provides for the reduction or termination of alimony "upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed betwe...

...(2006). The statute recognizes "that relationships do exist that provide economic support equivalent to a marriage and that alimony terminable on remarriage may be reduced or terminated upon the establishment of equivalent equitable circumstances...." § 61.14(1)(b)3., Fla....

...And, she lived half the year free under Mr. Bradford's roof. These facts led to the trial court's inevitable conclusion that a supportive relationship existed — a relationship that by definition reduced the need of the former wife. The very purpose of section 61.14(b), Florida Statutes (2006) is to recognize the "economic support" that results when ostensibly independent individuals chose to live under one roof in a "supportive relationship." § 61.14(1)(b)1., 3., Fla. Stat. (2006). The statute equates such a relationship with "economic support equivalent to a marriage" and requires a reduction or termination of alimony. § 61.14(1)(b)3., Fla....

...ationale for distinguishing between remarriage and mere cohabitation in a supportive relationship? Linstroth, 2 So.3d 305, 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (Farmer, J., dissenting). This case provides the perfect set of facts in which to test the efficacy of section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...We likewise find no merit to the contention that the trial court abused its discretion in sequestering all of the former husband's share of the marital assets in a trust fund for future child support, given the former husband's current incarceration and precarious immigration status in this country. See § 61.14(1)(c), Fla....

...In support of his argument, the former husband cites to Rodgers v. Diederichsen, 820 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), Israel v. Israel, 824 So.2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Kraus v. Kraus, 749 So.2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). However, these decisions were rendered prior to the enactment of section 61.14(11), Florida Statutes....

...Francis Buckley then requested this court to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction so that the trial court could consider his motion to modify the final judgment. When this court denied the motion to relinquish jurisdiction, he filed "Respondent's Supplemental Complaint For Judgment Under F.S. 61.14" in the trial court....

...urrently resides. [1] He filed his petition to modify child support obligations in Seminole County, where the order requiring him to pay $600 per month had been entered, and where he resides. He argues venue is proper in Seminole County, pursuant to section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes....

...No additional findings were made by the Seminole County circuit court. Section 61.13(1)(1)(a) [2] gives the original circuit court that entered the decree requiring child support payments continuing jurisdiction to modify, based on change of circumstances. However, section 61.14(1) provides alternative venue sites for modification *595 suits (including the court which originally entered the decree) in either party's county where he or she is residing when the modification petition is filed....

...es of the parties. The court initially entering a child support order shall also have continuing jurisdiction to require the obligee to report to the court on terms prescribed by the court regarding the disposition of the child support payments. [3] Section 61.14(1) states: 61.14 Enforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders....

...In resolving that issue in the present context, we are strongly influenced by the fact that the right involved — that is, the one to modification of an existing alimony award in the light of changing circumstances — has been established by the legislature in the broadest and most compelling terms. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981), which has been in effect in virtually the identical form since the mid-1930's, provides: (1) When a husband and wife have entered or hereafter enter into an agreement for payments for, or instead of, support, m...

...inal decree of divorce was entered which incorporated an earlier separation agreement in accordance with its terms. Thereafter, the former wife filed a petition for modification of the final decree under Fla. Stat. § 65.15, a predecessor of current Section 61.14, seeking payments greater than those provided for in the separation agreement....

...mands, causes of action, inheritance or descent that each may have or have had against the other by virtue of the marriage between the parties herein divorced." In November 1980, the wife petitioned for modification of the divorce decree pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, claiming a substantial change in her financial circumstances, an increase in her living expenses and an increase in the husband's financial resources....

...inal decree of divorce was entered which incorporated an earlier separation agreement in accordance with its terms. Thereafter, the former wife filed a petition for modification of the final decree under Fla. Stat. § 65.15, a predecessor of current Section 61.14, seeking payments greater than those provided for in the separation agreement....

...ded to meet the child's needs. Section 61.30, Florida Statutes, provides the trial court with discretion to consider many factors in adjusting a total minimum child support award to achieve an equitable result. § 61.30(11)(a), Fla. Stat.; see also, § 61.14, Fla....

...parties who can agree are nevertheless bound by the statute. *327 At the same time, a property distribution under chapter 61 is quite different than alimony, child support, or child custody and visitation as regards the ability to modify a judgment. Section 61.14(1) provides: "When the parties enter into an agreement for payments for, or instead of, support, maintenance, or alimony, whether in connection with a proceeding for dissolution or separate maintenance or with any voluntary property set...

...due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child, decreasing, increasing, or confirming the amount of separate support, maintenance, or alimony provided for in the agreement or order." [emphasis supplied]. Section 61.14 makes clear that only alimony and child support, or child custody, or child visitation may be modified after final judgment....

...fair value to any third party. The value of the interest in the property distributed would therefore become severely impaired, for no purchaser would pay fair market value for property whose ownership might later be changed by the trial judge. Given section 61.14's rather explicit failure to empower the court to modify property interests after final distribution, it follows that the trial court lacks jurisdiction under chapter 61 after a final judgment to decide property questions, unless the fi...

...One Information Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Incentive Connection, 693 So.2d 1092, 1093 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Finally, the former husband correctly contends that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment without providing him notice and a time for response. Although section 61.14(6)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2009), provides for a summary procedure in which delinquent support payments to the Central Depository may be treated as a final judgment by operation of law, see Vitt v....

modification of a paternity support order, pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes, in his home county of Putnam

...The trial court found that the payments were due under a non-modifiable property settlement agreement. Alternatively, the trial court held that even if the agreement were legally subject to modification, the husband was not entitled to modification under section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1983), because he failed to make a sufficient showing of *632 changed financial circumstances....

...the same time, the value of the wife's assets increased substantially. The wife counterclaimed for arrearages of support payments and specific performance of the agreement. We think the trial court correctly denied the request for modification under section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1983), because the contract was a true property settlement agreement not subject to modification....

...avit were for gifts, retirement savings, future repairs to her house, and other items which are not proper considerations for determining alimony. The Former Wife's need for alimony is less than the $11,000 per month previously established. Analysis Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2007), provides in relevant part as follows: (1)(a) When the parties enter into an agreement for payments for, or instead of, support, maintenance, or alimony ......

...nth. Conclusion We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The Former Wife may, of course, seek upward modification if future circumstances demand. We do recognize that she would bear the burden to demonstrate entitlement to such relief. See § 61.14(1)(a); Chambliss v....

obligation. Both parties appeal this final judgment. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2015), provides for the ability

...Accordingly, the trial court did not err in entertaining Mr. Morin's request to modify the foreign judgment, established here as a local judgment, as to future installments required to be paid thereunder. Sackler v. Sackler, 47 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1950); § 61.14, Fla....

factual basis for that finding”). Pursuant to section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), husband is presumed

...2d DCA 1982); Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Slightly different rules obtain where, unlike this case, the final judgment of marriage dissolution sought to be modified incorporates a property settlement agreement. See § 61.14, Fla....

...he decree, to make child support payments until the child meets one of those tests. The only method by a which a husband may absolve himself of such obligation of support prior to the child reaching twenty-one is if he files a motion to modify under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), and is able to prove the child has since become married or self-supporting....

...1975); Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1975); Field v. Field, 291 So.2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Manganiello v. Manganiello, 359 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Adams v. Adams, 340 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Appellant has filed no motion to modify under § 61.14, Florida Statutes, but improperly goes outside of the record with a statement in his brief that his son is now in the Air Force and self-supporting....

...nsel for the wife contends that the $100.00 per week was in the nature of permanent alimony, payable periodically, and the award of $50.00 per week for tuition until the end of her school year was in the nature of rehabilitative alimony. §§ 61.08, 61.14, Fla....

...too, reserved jurisdiction. We are of the view that the rule to be established in cases governed by the new no fault divorce law of Florida is: Where the trial judge reserves jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, particularly in light of § 61.14, Fla....

...other than the "mere fact of her remarriage." Id. *1071 We note the effect of Frye is to place a petition to terminate rehabilitative alimony because of remarriage of the payee spouse in the same position as a petition to modify alimony pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981). This is because the trial court is required in both situations to consider "changed circumstances" before disturbing an existing order. Frye at 1390; § 61.14(1). Thus, a payor spouse seeking to terminate rehabilitative alimony because of the remarriage of his former spouse must file a petition in accordance with the provisions of section 61.14....

...Therefore, the outcome of this case must turn upon the law applicable when these two factors are not present. In Van Loon v. Van Loon, 132 Fla. 535, 182 So. 205 (1938), the supreme court interpreted the then applicable statutory provisions regarding modifications of alimony (which is very similar to section 61.14) and held: [W]here past-due installment payments of alimony under a valid judicial decree remain unpaid, they do constitute vested property rights of which the party cannot be deprived except by due process of law....

...enforce the nonpayment thereof through an order of contempt. So long as jurisdiction existed for this purpose, we hold that the court also had jurisdiction to consider a petition for modification directed to obtaining additional alimony pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...We, however, take the broader view that "support enforcement" refers to enforcement of the noncustodial parent's general obligation of support. The general obligation of support encompasses the obligation to modify the amount of support upon a showing of change in need and ability to pay. § 61.14, Fla....

...ication or enforcement proceedings. McCallum v. McCallum, 364 So.2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Those future proceedings stand on their own footing. Jurisdiction of the trial court to consider enforcement and modification proceedings finds its source in section 61.14 and section 61.16 of the Florida Statutes....

...The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees based upon the fact that no testimony was introduced at the final hearing on the subject of attorney's fees. On appeal, the defendant contends that it was error for the trial court not to consider local law which would modify the foreign judgment pursuant to F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A....

...1st DCA 1993), disapproved on other grounds by Boyett v. Boyett, 703 So.2d 451 (Fla.1997). The trial judge did err, however, in ordering for the first time in 1997 that the *735 appellant must maintain life insurance to secure the payment of permanent alimony. Although section 61.14, Florida Statutes, gives circuit judges authority to revisit alimony, the plain language of the statute does not support the appellee's position that the statute gave the judge authority to order insurance for the first time. Section 61.14 provides that "the court has jurisdiction to make orders ......

...Tinsley, 502 So.2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). It therefore denied the petition for modification. The former husband appeals. A reduction in alimony can be based either on the decreased income of one party or the decreased needs of the other party. See § 61.14(1), Fla....

...There, the former husband challenged a trial court's order reducing alimony, because the court used an improper analysis in determining the size of the reduction. We held that all applicable section 61.08(2) factors in determining alimony must be considered in modification proceedings under section 61.14....

found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family

...ve or compensatory fines, and may order any other relief permitted by law. Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read "General Information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure....

...2d DCA 1991), the Second District held the end of the term for rehabilitative alimony, rather than the status of a spouse's obligation for making payments, determined the time limits for filing a petition for modification. In Mouton the court stated: Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1989), extends jurisdiction to the trial courts to "make orders as equity requires" to modify an award of alimony....

...limony and avoid any risk that the other spouse, as a matter of equity, was entitled to an extension of alimony at the close of the term. Such unilateral control of alimony is not compatible with the goals and purposes of rehabilitative alimony, and section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1989), does not require this court to limit the trial court's jurisdiction in such an arbitrary fashion....

...I have a problem, however, with the holding that "the trial court's continuing jurisdiction is determined by the length of the period of support." I do not understand why the court's continuing jurisdiction is at all thought to be tied to the support period. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in pertinent part: "when a party is required by court order to make any payments, and the circumstances of either party changes * * * either party may apply to the circuit court in which * * * the o...

...or resumption of assistance for some temporary period of time. The question here, however, is not what kind of facts would support such a resumption *80 or continuation, but whether the court has jurisdiction to consider that application. As I read section 61.14, the legislature has said that jurisdiction is effected when the dissolution proceeding was filed, and it never really ends as to the question of alimony....

...2 A.L.R.2d 831 (1948). Of course, we are always cognizant that orderly procedure would require, if a person wishes relief, that the change in circumstances be brought promptly to the trial court's attention for evaluation and appropriate modification of the judgment. Section 61.14, F.S....

...Nor do we think the court can be held to have erred in granting appellee's motion to dismiss the petition for modification and increase of the resumed child support payments, after appellant rested her case on that issue without any effort to prove the child's increased need and appellee's increased ability to pay. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...The court refused, denied the motion for modification, denied the petition for contempt and denied Ms. Brown's request for attorney's fees. The court may modify a support order or agreement if "the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed." (e.s.) § 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...on based on all the evidence should have been granted to prevent elevation of form over substance in light of the statutory prescription that the court shall "make orders as equity requires, with due regard to the changed ... financial ability... ." § 61.14(1), supra....

So.2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)). Under section 61.14(l)(b)l., Florida Statutes (2012), a court may

...modification or subsequent thereto, but it cannot modify alimony that was due prior to the filing of the petition."); see also Burkhart v. Burkhart, 731 So.2d 733, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Fenner v. Fenner, 599 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

...Indeed, in the present case the attorney for Mr. Rodriguez essentially conceded that interest on the missed child support payments was due. Unfortunately, we can find no direct guidance in the statutes governing child support concerning how payments on arrearages are to be applied. We note that section 61.14(6), Florida Statutes (2006), relates that unpaid support payments that are required to be paid through a local depository or through the State Disbursement Unit are treated under certain circumstances as final judgments by operation of...

...In this "judgment," the court made several findings: In the First Addendum to the Property Settlement the parties agreed "that neither shall file any modification proceedings as to alimony or support matters herein based on an increase in the income of either part." Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981) gives the Court the power to adjust alimony with due regard to changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties....

...Johnson, 386 So.2d 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). This case also holds that whether or not a sufficient change in circumstances occurred requires the consideration of the totality of the parties' circumstances. Goldin v. Goldin, 346 So.2d 107 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977) holds that Section 61.14, Florida Statutes "gives a trial court jurisdiction to enter orders as equity requires upon a petition for modification of a separation and property settlement agreement as incorporated in a divorce decree based on a change in financial...

...h Judicial Circuit which encompasses St. Lucie County, her present county of residence. The ex-husband does not dispute that the Circuit Court in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit is the proper court, if any, in which to file such a motion pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...In this petition, however, he sought a transfer back to Palm Beach County, alleging that the circuit court in Alachua County was no longer a convenient forum for the parties. Taking the view that Mr. Serraes's petition sought modification of a support order, see section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999) (authorizing an application for reduced support payments "to the circuit court of the circuit in which the parties, or either of them, ......

...to the transferor court are to prevent a case from being shuttled back and forth and to prevent coordinate courts from effectively overruling each other."). Venue in the circuit court of Alachua County is proper, under either section 61.13(2)(c) or section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...Florida, however, is among the substantial majority of jurisdictions which recognize that the provision of palliative care to prevent and ease pain and discomfort is proper after the claimant has reached his maximum level of improvement. See 2 Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 61.14 (1982); DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation v....

...The burden on the appellant to show an abuse of discretion in that matter was not met. French v. French, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So.2d 584, 585; Tomaino v. Martz, Fla.App. 1965, 170 So.2d 468, 469; Ortiz v. Ortiz, Fla. App. 1968, 211 So.2d 243; and Frischkorn v. Frischkorn, Fla.App. 1969, 223 So.2d 380. See generally § 61.14, Fla....

The first paragraph of the pleading cites section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes, which discusses modification

...two years before the petition was filed. A trial court may "modify an order of support ... by increasing or decreasing the support ... retroactively to the date of the filing of the action or supplemental action for modification as equity requires." § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

...1st DCA 1996), State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Burns, 654 So.2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), in contending that no such reduction was allowed in the First District before section 61.14(1)(a) was amended....

...Yockey, 784 So.2d *1087 582, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Under the statute, after the amendment as before, a trial court has discretion to make a reduction of child support retroactive to the date the petition for modification was filed, whenever "equity requires." § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

...was at the time of the execution of the agreement. While a trial court does have the right to reduce alimony and support provisions of a property settlement agreement upon a showing of substantial change in circumstances of either party pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1985), we hold that such a change was not shown in the instant case....

...reaching and fairly entered into after full disclosure, is valid and binding as to conditions existing at the time of the agreement. Such agreement, the court opined, is subject to modification by the trial court only upon a showing under Fla. Stat. § 61.14 of a change of circumstances subsequent to the execution of the agreement....

...e former husband to pay a purge amount of only $100 a month for a $20,706.13 child support arrearage. The 1999 order created a presumption that the former husband had the present ability to pay child support and to purge himself of the contempt. See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla....

...cause of poor health. We affirm. A party seeking modification of permanent periodic alimony must show a substantial change of circumstances. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980); Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So.2d 66, 68 (Fla. 1954); § 61.14(1), Fla....

...We agree with the six months' award of rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $200 per month, but it is our opinion that the final judgment should have specifically reserved jurisdiction to award permanent alimony at a future time if later applied for and properly allowable under § 61.14, Florida Statutes....

...e do not rule upon it at this time. Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions to modify the final judgment to specifically reserve jurisdiction as to subsequent award of permanent alimony if later applied for and properly allowable under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes....

...O'Flarity, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. James R. Rich of Law Office of James R. Rich, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee. WARNER, Judge. Appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. Appellee contends that under section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1995), venue is proper....

...ion as agreed in the parties' settlement. The complaint did not seek an increase in alimony but rather sought to establish an escrow account from which the appellee could draw her alimony payments and the children could secure their college tuition. Section 61.14(1) provides in pertinent part: [E]ither party may apply to the circuit court of the circuit in which the parties, or either of them ... reside at the date of the application ... for an order decreasing or increasing the amount of support, maintenance, or alimony, and the court has jurisdiction to make orders as equity requires.... § 61.14(1) (emphasis supplied)....

...A specific venue statute takes precedence over general venue law. Bryant v. Bryant, 566 So.2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Nevertheless, a primary rule of statutory construction is that courts should not depart from the plain and unambiguous language of the statute. Dade County v. Pena, 664 So.2d 959 (Fla.1995). Section 61.14(1) applies by its own terms to actions seeking a modification order "decreasing or increasing the amount" of alimony or support....

...The action brought by appellee seeks neither an increase nor a decrease of alimony or support but seeks only to secure the award already made. It is more of an enforcement action than a modification proceeding. As such, the *514 venue provision of section 61.14(1) does not apply, and the general venue statute provides that the action should be brought in the county of defendant's residence....

...There is nothing in the record to indicate whether or not the adultery occurred after appellant's separation from appellee or if it was the same instance admitted at the hearing. Neither party challenges the validity of the agreement itself. While it is true that Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975) permits judicial modification of agreements concerning alimony, this statute is inapplicable here....

...ree to make child support payments until the child reaches his twenty-first birthday. The only method by which a husband may absolve himself of such obligation of support prior to the child reaching twenty-one is if he files a motion to modify under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), and is able to show that the child has since become married or self-supporting....

...4th DCA 1969) (Concurring opinion, White, Assoc. J.). [7] For example, § 65.05, pertaining to "Effect of decree of divorce upon children," was changed to "Effect of judgment of divorce on children." For similar changes compare § 65.08 to § 61.08; § 65.11 with § 61.11; § 65.15 with § 61.14 and § 65.20 with § 61.19.

...blic policy-related presumptions that provide for shifting of the burden of proof). Other legislatively mandated public policy-related presumptions abound. See, e.g., Mallardi v. Jenne, 721 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (discussing amendment to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1992), which adopted a presumption relating to contempt for failure to pay alimony or child support under section 90.302(2) of the evidence code "to implement the public policy of this state"); Ferguson v....

...Campbell, 220 So.2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). In this case, the agreement did not expressly mention or waive the wife's alimony rights. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment, and upon remand direct the court to conduct further proceedings under section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1983), consistent with this opinion....

...(Emphasis added, citations omitted.) The settlement agreement was approved in the judgment of dissolution and when that judgment became final, it was res judicata. However, all child support provisions in judgments of dissolution are subject to modification upon a showing of changed circumstances. § 61.14, Fla....

...roneous financial information concerning the husband's income in establishing his child support obligations. On August 7, 1990, the husband filed a supplemental petition to modify final judgment, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 and section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...[2] As in all other cases, the trial court should leave it up to the former wife to file a motion to modify if, and when, she feels that such a motion is necessary and appropriate. The former wife would then have the burden of demonstrating a change of circumstances necessitating the increase in payments. See Fla. Stat. § 61.14 (1995)....

...[1] The Final Judgment for Civil Contempt is reversed; the Final Money Judgment and Order on Husband's Petition to Modify and Wife's Motion to Enforce Final Judgment are affirmed. NOTES [1] Appellant's petition to modify the final judgment pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981) was granted, effective the date of the hearing, on a showing by appellant that the child had attained majority and was not dependent.

...The situation is different as to other heirs and creditors of the deceased husband and their claims against his estate, but the two women stand on different footing. They represent a specific class within the class of persons who have claims upon the estate. Section 61.14, F.S....

...The present status and the needs of the two former wives must be carefully evaluated together and correlated in terms of the extent, nature and justice of their claims; the one statutory (F.S. § 731.34, F.S.A.); the other pursuant to agreement which had authority of statute for its making (§ 61.14, F.S....

...ent of the parties. The same order denied the ex-wife's petition for attorney's fees and suit money. She appeals. Appellant contends that the written agreement which was made a part of the final decree is not subject to modification under F.S. 1967, Section 61.14, F.S.A., because it was a property settlement agreement made between the parties in good faith while husband and wife, citing in support of such proposition numerous authorities, including Salomon v....

...The provisions relating to the alimony and maintenance of the wife, including the expense of medical treatment and hospitalization, were the provisions which the court modified, such being clearly subject to modification under the provisions of F.S. 1967, Section 61.14, F.S.A....

...me. However, the Record fails to show that the court imputed income to the former wife. Instead, it appears that the court simply denied the former wife's Petition for Modification of Support without considering the support guidelines as required by section 61.14, Florida Statutes....

...d in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, supra , was a valid and binding agreement between the parties at the time and under the conditions it was made, subject to modification upon a showing of changed circumstances and conditions as provided in Fla. Stat. § 61.14....

...Posner principle. Thus, we conclude that the trial court, having found the agreement to be valid and binding under the Del Vecchio guidelines, was bound by the alimony provisions thereof, subject to modification only upon a showing under Fla. Stat. § 61.14 (1973), of a change of circumstances subsequent to the execution of the agreement....

...posing party to be heard and defend against the petition for modification. Kosch v. Kosch, 113 So.2d 547, 550 (Fla. 1959); Stickney v. Stickney, 377 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Sikes v. Sikes, 286 So.2d 210, 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). See also § 61.14(1), Fla....

...t of Appeal when the former wife filed her petition in Hernando County. In Hernando County, the former husband argued that, because of the pending litigation, the former wife could not file her petition in Hernando County. We agree and reverse. *794 Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a person seeking modification of support "may apply to the circuit court of the circuit in which the parties, or either of them, resided at the date of the execution of the agreement or reside at the...

...Moses Meide, Jr., Michael J. Korn and Tonya H. Walker of Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The appellant challenges an order denying a petition for modification of his alimony obligation. The appellant sought modification pursuant to section 61.14(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and he contends that because it was shown that the appellee was in a "supportive relationship" the court should not have considered the appellee's financial need in deciding whether to modify the alimony. However, while section 61.14(1)(b)2 catalogs a nonexclusive listing of other factors for the court's consideration, the financial circumstances remain pertinent and the court was entitled to consider the appellee's financial need....

...The evidence presented to the trial court included testimony that the husband's expenses exceeded his income and that he was unable to make the percentage child support payments. The trial court found that a substantial change of circumstances had occurred and, pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981), modified the husband's child support obligation by ordering the husband to continue making child support payments of $30.00 per week....

...The wife concedes that the record could support a finding of the inability of the husband to pay the agreed upon percentage amount of child support. We agree with the wife that the mere inability of the husband to pay is not enough to justify modification of support. Under section 61.14 "changed circumstances" sufficient to justify a modification of child support must be unanticipated, Coe v....

...h the dissolution decree. However, the standards of Canakaris regarding the trial court's discretion were made specifically applicable to "a domestic relation proceeding," 382 So.2d at 1202, and, of course, that is what is involved here. Also, under section 61.14(1) a trial court has far greater authority to judicially change a contract which is a settlement agreement subject to court approval than to review a contract in a normal commercial setting....

filing a petition for modification pursuant • to section 61.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2015). The trial

...James Parker, New Port Richey, for appellee. HALL, Judge. The state appeals from the final summary judgment entered in favor of John W. Stanjeski in his action for declaratory and injunctive relief in which he challenged the constitutionality of the 1987 amendment to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Stanjeski informing him that a judgment by operation of law would be entered against him if he did not pay the amount of delinquency within thirty days of July 3, 1987, the date the payment had become due. In response to this notice, Mr. Stanjeski filed a complaint seeking a declaration that section 61.14, as amended effective July 1, 1987, is unconstitutional....

...hich the clerk was acting was determined. The temporary injunction was granted. Mr. Stanjeski then filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion in a final summary judgment in which it found that the procedure instituted by section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987), violates the rights of Mr. Stanjeski to access to the courts as guaranteed by the Florida Constitution and to due process as guaranteed by both the Florida and the United States Constitutions. The state filed this timely appeal. The state first contends that section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987), does not violate Mr. Stanjeski's right to access to the courts because it does not prevent him or any other obligor of support from seeking to modify the amount of future support payments. Section 61.14(5) provides as follows: (5)(a) When support payments are made through the local depository, an unpaid payment or installment of support which becomes due after July 1, 1987, under any support order and is delinquent shall become, after...

...However, due process entails more than the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard by a clerk of the circuit court. [1] Ryan. Due process contemplates a legal proceeding in a court of law. To deprive a person of his property without the right to be heard, as is done in section 61.14(5), is in direct derogation of the due process clauses of both the Florida and United States Constitutions....

...Money, 124 Ill.2d 265, 124 Ill.Dec. 561, 529 N.E.2d 542 (1988), in support of its contentions in this appeal. We find that case supports Mr. Stanjeski's contentions and our resolution of this case. At issue in Money was the constitutionality of an Illinois statute similar to section 61.14(5) in that its purpose is to secure payment for child support arrearages....

...ncelled or modified." Id. 124 Ill.Dec. at 566, 529 N.E.2d at 547. This right of an obligor under the Illinois statute to challenge an alleged delinquency, i.e., have his day in court, is the critical fact that distinguishes the Illinois statute from section 61.14(5). Therefore, the state's reliance on Money is misplaced. Accordingly, we affirm the final summary judgment declaring section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987), unconstitutional. SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur. NOTES [1] The office of the clerk of the circuit court operates as the local depository, § 61.181, Fla. Stat. (1987), and the local depository enters the judgment against the obligor, § 61.14(5)(b), Fla....

...ndard of living and not to provide a fund for future, unspecified uses. As the child's needs increase, and they might very well increase, the legislature has provided a remedy often used. It is called a "modification" and the procedure is set out in section 61.14, Florida Statutes....

...White had established a supportive relationship with another man with whom she resided. [2] *402 After a lengthy hearing, the trial court made the following pertinent findings: B. The Former Husband has demonstrated that the Former Wife has a "supportive relationship" as envisioned by § 61.14, Florida Statutes....

...ision to reduce or terminate alimony for abuse of discretion."). Ms. White did not challenge the trial court's finding in paragraph B of the order on appeal that she is in a supportive relationship that supports reducing or eliminating alimony under section 61.14(b)(1). Regardless, after applying the appropriate standard of review to any questions of fact and law, we believe the finding to be correct. See Buxton, 963 So.2d at 953 (holding that a decision under section 61.14(b) "presents a mixed question of law and fact, which calls for a mixed standard of review")....

...Instead, it claims an entitlement based on Rados. The Rados opinion is not a basis for entitlement to attorney's fees. Therefore, Ms. White's motion for appellate attorney's fees and costs is denied. Reversed and remanded. WHATLEY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] Section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), states that "[if] the circumstances or the financial ability of either party changes . . . either party may apply to the circuit court . . . for an order decreasing or increasing the amount of . . . alimony[.]" [2] Section 61.14(b)(1) provides that "[t]he court may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed between the obl...

jurisdiction to enforce and modify an alimony award. See § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010); see also Wiele v. Kadzis

...ure. E.g., Douglas v. Douglas, 795 So.2d 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Such modification can only be based on changed conditions occurring since entry of the prior award or modification thereto. E.g., Hosford v. Hosford, 362 So.2d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); § 61.14, Fla....

...Therefore, the sum allowed for child support is reversed, and upon remand the judge will set an amount in accordance with the present needs of the child and the ability of the father to contribute, bearing in mind that the amounts allowed are subject to review under Fla. Stat. § 61.13 and § 61.14, F.S.A....

“supportive relationship” within the meaning of section 61.14(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2009). The Former Wife

...manner she has become accustomed to during the marriage. Of course, if husband's ability to pay were to be reduced or if wife were to become able to adequately support herself, husband would be entitled to petition the trial court for modification. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975); Wilson v....

...in a home she owns in Leesburg. Mrs. Abdella then sought accrued child support and, in September 1995, Mr. Abdella sought modification of his support obligation based on his changed circumstances. Mr. Abdella appeals the order denying modification. Section 61.14 Florida Statutes (1995)provides in part: Enforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders.- (1) When the parties enter into an agreement for payments for, or instead of, support, maintenance, or alim...

...We agree that the trial court erred in making an award insufficient to meet the former wife's needs where the former husband clearly has the ability to meet those needs. A petition for modification of alimony may not be denied where a change in circumstances is clearly shown. Chord v. Chord, 209 So.2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); § 61.14 Fla....

Supportive Relationship — a relationship, defined in section 61.14(l)(b)l, Florida Statutes, existing between a

modification would not reach back into the case. See § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010) (allowing modification

...797, 251 S.W.2d 302, 303 (1952); Slater v. Slater, 327 Mich. 569, 42 N.W.2d 742, 743 (1950); Luplau v. Luplau, 117 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 1938); Holbrook v. Holbrook, 116 Utah 114, 208 P.2d 1113, 1114 (1949). In reaching our decision, we do not overlook Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1983), relied on by the father, which authorizes a party to move to modify child support payments contained, as here, in a settlement agreement entered into between the parties where "the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed......

...." The statute, however, does not provide that the court is required to grant such a motion, but only that "the court has jurisdiction to make orders as equity requires, with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties... ." § 61.14(1), Fla....

...he child reaches twenty-nine years of age, without any legal basis to support such a delay. The final judgment of support created a presumption that the father had the ability to pay child support and to purge himself of any subsequent contempt. See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla....

“supportive relationship” within the meaning of section 61.14(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), and that a reduction

...1st DCA 1999)(fact-finding requirements of section 61.08 are applicable where entitlement to alimony or amount is at issue). We also reject the former husband's contention that the trial court was required to consider whether a modification of the support amount was warranted under section 61.14, Florida Statutes, as he never requested modification below....

...In January 1987, the wife filed a petition for modification in Orange County, seeking an increase in support. The husband filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to Sarasota County. After a hearing, the Orange County court granted the motion to transfer. The wife appeals this order. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...ble. In that case, the husband filed a modification petition in Escambia County. However, a proceeding to enforce the child support provisions of the final judgment was still pending in Bradford County. The First District held that the provisions of section 61.14 could not be manipulated to escape or ignore enforcement proceedings pending in a different county and that equity would require that the case be transferred to Bradford County....

...lacks the finality required to determine the issue of permanent periodic alimony, terminate the cause between the parties, allow for meaningful appellate review, and provides no basis upon which modification might be sought in the future pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes....

became final except as to the alimony award. See § 61.14 Fla.Stat. (1979). . See Black’s Law Dictionary

...The marriage of these parties was dissolved by final judgment on September 6, 2005. The terms of that final judgment ordered the Former Husband to pay $1800 a month in permanent periodic alimony to the Former Wife. On August 21, 2007, the Former Husband, citing section 61.14(1)(b)(2)(a-k), (3), Florida Statutes (2007), petitioned the trial court to either reduce or terminate the alimony obligation, alleging that the Former Wife was involved in a "supportive relationship." At the initial hearing on the petit...

...fts the burden of proving continued need to the recipient spouse. [1] We therefore certify conflict with French. Reversed and remanded with instructions; conflict certified. ALTENBERND and FULMER, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] The discretionary language of section 61.14(1)(b)(3) further supports our conclusion that the determination that a supportive relationship exists does not conclude the inquiry....

enforcement provisions should be ordered. See § 61.14(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015). Here, the trial court

pay a $20,000 purge to avoid incarceration. See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing for a presumption

...We do not agree with the contention of appellant that "Separate Maintenance" has been abolished by the new "Dissolution of Marriage Law" effective July 1, 1971, Chapter 71.241, Laws of Florida, 1971. The phrase "Separate Maintenance" is retained in that law. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes, 5 F.S.A....

Mr. Schecter’s temporary support obligation. Section 61.14(ll)(a), of the Florida Statutes provides that

found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family

a payee’s relationship, not to a payor’s. See § 61.14(l)(b)(l), Fla. Stat; (2009) (providing that a court

maintenance, and alimony agreements or orders, section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), is primarily

upon entering a final order in a proceeding.” § 61.14(ll)(a). Because the trial court’s jurisdiction

...ers as equity requires, with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child, decreasing, increasing, or confirming the amount of separate support, maintenance, or alimony provided for in the . . . order. § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

...As to alimony, too, the trial court recognized the former husband had a burden to show a material, permanent change, not contemplated at the time of the final dissolution of marriage. See Yangco, 901 So.2d at 219; Dykes, 712 So.2d at 1193. As to alimony, however, the trial court did find "changed circumstances." § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

order of *1261child support brought pursuant to section 61.14(1). Id. (Gunther, J., dissenting). Based upon

Florida’s supportive relationship statute, section 61.14(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2015), is not applicable

filing of a petition seeking a modification. See § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that court

...tion because she did not show a sufficient need to justify an increase in the monthly payments. Therefore, it is apparent that the trial court applied a different standard in denying the wife's request than was used in denying the husband's request. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1981), gives the trial court jurisdiction to modify alimony judgments or agreements....

...nt with, modifiable agreements relating to spousal or child support. We agree with the husband that the monthly payments due the wife after payment of the $30,000 of lump-sum alimony is permanent periodic alimony and is subject to modification under section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981), by reason of changed financial circumstances less than "the strongest and most compelling reasons" test applied by the trial court....

...Scheer, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 456. Our opinion here is to be interpreted as being without prejudice to the rights of the parties to institute and maintain the usual contempt proceedings or to seek specific modification of the judgment as provided by Section 61.14, F.S....

...dismissed the petition in an order which found that the judgment of divorce was not modifiable "according to the laws of the State of Florida". This interlocutory appeal followed. The Florida statute on modification of alimony judgments, Fla. Stat. § 61.14, F.S.A., is broadly written to give the courts the authority to modify alimony payments even when they are a part of a "voluntary property settlement"....

...ourt, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980) (quoting Delno v. Mkt. St. Ry. Co., 124 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir.1942)). Here, the trial court, invested with authority by section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes, made a modification order "as equity require[d], with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child, decreasing ......

...Carr, 218 So.2d 525 (2nd DCA Fla. 1969) contends that this general venue statute only controls actions brought under the common law or under statutes not containing a specific provision respecting venue, but that, in this case, the specific venue provision contained in Fla. Stat. § 61.14 (1973) applies. Fla. Stat. § 61.14 provides: "61.14 Modification of alimony judgments; agreements, etc....

...t or order." (emphasis supplied) Clearly, this statute, providing that venue may be laid in either parties' county of residence, only relates to actions for the modification of alimony judgments, agreements, etc. Appellee is not seeking relief under § 61.14, and it is therefore simply not applicable. Stewart v. Carr, supra, involved a petition to establish a foreign decree and to modify that decree. [1] That court stated, at 528: "We therefore hold that F.S. § 61.14, F.S.A., the modification statute under which the instant proceeding was filed in Broward County, and which contains affirmative provisions with reference to venue, controls, and that the action was permissively instituted in that county, the residence of [petitioner/appellant], he having the choice within the confines of the statute." (emphasis supplied) Thus, the situation in that case is clearly distinguishable from the one at bar in that there the action was expressly brought under § 61.14....

...But see, Lopez v. Avery, 66 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1953) in which the Supreme Court held that an amended complaint which sought establishment of a foreign decree and thereafter modification of its terms stated a cause of action under the predecessor statute to § 61.14.

...It is worth repeating our observation in Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007): [T]emporary support orders are, obviously, temporary. They do not create vested rights, and they can be modified or vacated at any time by the circuit court while the litigation proceeds. See § 61.14(11), Fla....

...is of the record considered by the Appellate Court. Any contention of the right for modification of an award based upon the status of the parties as of the Final Judgment of Dissolution (December 6, 1972), may be filed as provided in Florida Statute 61.14....

...*31 Marvin Kurzban, Miami, for appellant. Cushman & Cushman, Miami, for appellee. Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ. PEARSON, Judge. This interlocutory appeal is brought by a former husband, who was the petitioner, seeking relief pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 61.14....

A review of a trial court’s decision under section 61.14(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), is a mixed question

the beginning *938of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family

So.2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“When the parties enter

844 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Under section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2011), statutory modification

...In the instant case, although the trial court stated that it considered all of the factors outlined in section 61.08(2), it failed to make any written findings regarding the factors. An award for alimony may be modified in light of the recipient's supportive relationship. See § 61.14(1)(b)(1)-(2), Florida Statutes (2007); French v. French, 4 So.3d 5, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Section 61.14(1)(b)(1) provides that, upon specific findings that a supportive relationship exists between an obligee and a person with whom the obligee resides, the trial court may reduce or terminate alimony. Section 61.14(1)(b)(2) delineates factors that the trial court "shall give consideration to" when determining whether a supportive relationship exists....

...Whether the obligee and the other person have provided support to the children of one another, regardless of any legal duty to do so. A supportive relationship is a relationship that "takes the financial place of a marriage and necessarily decreases the need of the obligee." French, 4 So.3d at 6. Section 61.14(1)(b) recognizes the economic support that occurs when independent individuals chose to live together....

...at 8. Financial support alone, however, does not define a supportive relationship. See Linstroth v. Dorgan, 2 So.3d 305, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). *762 In the instant case, the trial court did not make any findings regarding the factors outlined in section 61.14(1)(b)....

...The parties did not own or intend to purchase any property jointly and did not have any joint bank accounts. Additionally, they had separate residences. Here, the evidence suggests that, although the wife is in a relationship which may, in time, rise to the level of a supportive relationship contemplated in section 61.14, it fails to reach that point yet....

evidence to support the trial court’s order. Under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979), the trial judge is

trial court order and remand for dismissal. See section 61.14, Fla.Stat.; Wright v. Wright, 559 So.2d 1193

...ve or compensatory fines, and may order any other relief permitted by law. Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read "General Information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure....

to obtaining additional alimony pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975). A spouse who is behind

the date of the petition for modification. See § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022); Carmack v. Carmack, 316

has a broad discretion under Florida Statutes § 61.14 (1967), F.S.A. and has not been shown to have abused

dismissed, 478 So.2d 53 (Fla.1985). See also § 61.14(5), Fla.Stat. (1991). Accordingly, we hold that

P. 12.190; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c). See also § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003) (“[T]he court may modify

PER CURIAM. *488Affirmed. See § 61.14(6)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (2017) ("The judgment under this paragraph

dissolution was entered in 1994. We reverse. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1995) provides that petitions

change in circumstances in accordance with [section] 61.14."). Former Husband owned an upholstery

least in the absence of parol evidence”). Section 61.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), allows for the

1997). Such a ruling was not compelled under section 61.14(5)(a) with regard to the current support obligation

analysis or result. Further, and importantly, section 61.14(1)(a), the language of the statute governing

*895support after the 1988 amendment repealing section 61.14(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1987). The 1987 statutes

...2d 942, 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). That seems difficult to square with the unambiguous, mandatory language of the statute and the fact that a trial court has other methods of addressing an alimony obligation that has become financially impossible. See, e.g., § 61.14, Fla....

the time of the final judgment of dissolution. § 61.14(1), Fla.Stat. (1989). The cause is remanded with

discussed further in this opinion. . Now, Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. . The dower and

fact that the court, under authority of F.S. section 61.14, F.S.A., twice entertained appellant’s petitions

agreement, was subject to modification pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1985). See Pujáis v. Pujáis

...The order finding the husband in contempt and awarding a final monetary judgment for the alimony arrearages is affirmed. Affirmed, as modified. NOTES [1] We are aware that, effective July 1, 1993, the legislature implicitly changed the burden of proof rule cited by the trial court through an amendment to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1993), which states that "the proof required to modify a settlement agreement and the proof required to modify an award established by court order shall be the same." § 61.14(7), Fla....

..., or until either party is deceased.” On remand, the court should enter a second amended final judgment removing the reference to cohabitation and substitute language referring to the “existence of a supportive relationship” in accordance with section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2014). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing...

change in circumstances or financial ability. § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022). That same provision authorizes

or circumstances occurs to warrant relief. F.S. § 61.14(1). In affirming this portion of the order below

final judgment of dissolution of marriage under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1985).

child support on November 18, 1985 pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1985). After considering

the parties may warrant. Florida Statutes, Section 61.14. BOOTH, LARRY G. SMITH, and SHIVES, JJ., concur

the dismissal of Appellant’s petition. Under section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), a party who

Seth Selesnow (“Mr. Selesnow”), citing to section 61.14, Florida Statutes, which provides for the termination

relief on the basis of changed circumstances. See § 61.14, Fla. Stat. (2017). Absent legally sufficient evidence

plain language of section 61.14(7), Florida Statutes (2017). Before 1993, section 61.14, Florida Statutes

Hogshead, 444 So.2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1983) applies to all such

in nature.” Nangle, 286 So. 3d at 379; see also § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023) (providing that a court

upon a substantial change in circumstances”); § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) (stating that a court

jurisdiction to modify an alimony award under section 61.14). But where these exceptions do not apply—and

time of the obviously inadequate agreement, see § 61.14(1), Fla.Stat. (1989); Siegel v. Zimmerman, 319

...1992). The substantial change of circumstances necessary to modify an alimony award must bear on either the payee spouse’s need for alimony or the payor spouse’s ability to pay it. See Galligher v. Galligher, 527 So. 2d 858, 860 (Fla. 1988); § 61.14(1), Fla....

So.2d 799, 800-01 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)); see also § 61.14, Fla. Stat. (2012) (giving former spouses authority

to justify the termination of support under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), where the husband

...- 348 -  Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. Remember, a person who is NOT an attorney is called a nonlawyer....

...- 361 -  Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. Remember, a person who is NOT an attorney is called a nonlawyer....

did not petition the court in accordance with Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1980) for a modification

support the children in what amount. Fla.Stat. § 61.14 (1971), F.S.A. provides for modification upon a

the financial ability of the parties . . . . § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). In Thyrre v. Thyrre

As well, Pompey was based on law prior to section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes, which controls the

correctly adhered to the statutory requirements of section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2018), and competent and

uncover the changed circumstances contemplated by Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, to warrant a modification

Stamm, Fla.App. 1972, 266 So.2d 413; Fla.Stat. § 61.14, F. S.A. For the reasons stated, the order appealed

...April 1, 2014, which was the approximate date upon which he was served with modification pleadings. The Department argued that such modifications, whether done by a circuit judge or an administrative court, are governed by sections 409.2563 and 61.14, Florida Statutes, which—when read together—contemplate such awards....

...esented here—is whether an administrative modification of such an order may be retroactive to the date of the service of the modification request. At this juncture, we run squarely into potentially conflicting language in sections 409.2563 and 61.14....

...But this subsection goes on to say that the 5 modification, suspension or termination of an administrative support order is subject to “the requirements for modifications” in Chapters 61 and 409, as may be “applicable.” The Department points to section 61.14, entitled “Enforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders,” which provides, in pertinent part: (1)(a) [W]hen a party is required by court order to make any payments, and the circumstances or the financial ability of either party changes ....

...decreasing the support, maintenance, or alimony retroactively to the date of the filing of the action or supplemental action for modification as equity requires, giving due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child. § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

...from a “parent’s failure” to abide by time-sharing responsibilities, which are “retroactive to the date the noncustodial parent first failed to regularly exercise the court-ordered or agreed time-sharing schedule.” § 61.30(11)(c), Fla. Stat. In cases like the present one, subsection 61.14(1)(a) allows modifications to potentially extend back further in time than section 61.30(11)(c) would permit. 6 same way that a judicial court can. But for the word “prospectively” in subsection 409.2563(12), the two statutory frameworks—61.14(1)(a) and 409.2563(12)—would dovetail in a seamless and unified way....

...re available to intervene when deemed warranted by parents, caregivers, or necessary parties.3 3 A parent or caregiver “may at any time file a civil action in a circuit court having 7  Unlike section 61.14, as previously discussed, section 409.2563(10)(c) says that circuit courts are without authority to retroactively modify administrative support orders, allowing a circuit court to only “enter an order prospectively changing the sup...

...shall govern future proceedings in the case.” Id. § 409.2563(10)(c) (emphasis added). In a similar vein, “[a]ny unpaid support owed under the superseded administrative support order may not be retroactively modified by the circuit court, except as provided by s. 61.14(1)(a), and remains enforceable by the department, by the obligee, or by the court.” Id....

...rospectively” in section 409.2563(12) as totally nullifying any administrative modification of administrative support orders. If such orders cannot be modified administratively in the same way that a circuit court can do to its own orders under section 61.14(1)(a), it necessarily follows that they could never be modified retroactively, no matter how important to the children and families involved....

...The better view, and one that harmonizes the potential conflict, is that the word “prospectively” is intended to be a default position, i.e., that administrative 9 modifications to administrative support orders are to be prospective in nature, unless some provision of section 61.14(1)(a) is established, such as the one the Department relies upon here....

...1st DCA 1991) (“where legislative language is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the interpretation which avoids an unreasonable result should be preferred.”). It also avoids the anomalous result that a circuit court—pursuant to section 61.14(a)—can retroactively modify its own support orders, but an administrative court—relying upon the same statutory authority—cannot....

...o make retroactive modifications to administrative support orders. In construing the statute as we do, we necessarily decline to accept the argument that the term, “as applicable,” referenced in section 409.2563(12), was meant to limit section 61.14(1)(a)’s grant of authority to retroactively modify support obligations....

considered in modification proceedings under section 61.14”). Notably, section 61.08(2) requires, among

...by the necessities of the wife and the financial ability of the husband to meet those necessities."). The amount or level of alimony is affected by the standard of living established during the marriage of the parties. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1201. Section 61.14 governs the modification of alimony awards, providing that when the "circumstances or the financial ability of either party changes" either party may apply for modification. § 61.14(1)(a), Fla....

may of course make application pursuant to Section 61.14 to the trial court for modification of the alimony

ability to purge himself from the contempt. See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial judge was openly

trial court had jurisdiction under Florida Statute § 61.14, F.S.A.1 to modify said agreement by the entry

has been established as a Florida judgment. See § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004); Sackler v. Sackler, 47

subject to modification under certain conditions. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977) authorizes the modification

application of the presumption articulated in section 61.14(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). However our review

paramour, making her ineligible for alimony under section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2014).

proceeding was properly given. It also noted that section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), creates a presumption

974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citation omitted). Section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes, governs modification

modify the alimony and child support awards. See § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). He alleged a substantial

... court order; the death of either party; or remarriage of Obligee, whichever occurs first. The alimony may be modified or terminated based upon either a substantial change in circumstances, or the existence of a supportive relationship in accordance with section 61.14, Florida Statutes. b.____ Bridge-the-Gap....

...order, the death of either party, or remarriage of Obligee, whichever occurs first. The alimony may be modified or terminated based upon either a substantial change in circumstances or the existence of a supportive relationship in accordance with section 61.14, Florida Statutes. b.____Bridge-the-Gap....

bodily attachment to enforce support obligation); § 61.14, Fla. Stat. (providing for modification and enforcement

...the former wife's income. § 61.08(2)(g). Finally, in light of our reversal of the trial court's determination of the former husband's income, the trial court is directed to revisit and, if needed, recalculate its modification of child support. See § 61.14(1); Hudson-McCann v....

...law.” The trial court adopted the recommendations of the hearing officer. The trial court erred. Under Department of Revenue v. Jackson, 846 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2003), appellant’s petition should have been held in abeyance on the court’s inactive calendar. [P]ursuant to section 61.14(1)(a), a parent seeking modification of child support payments because he or she is unable to pay the installments due to incarceration may file a petition to modify with the trial court that entered the original child support order....

reminded that contempt findings are required by section 61.14, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992). (“The court shall

Motion to Enforce v. Motion to Modify under section 61.14 The Former Husband further argues that

this type of award is not contemplated by F.S. § 61.14, 1971, F.S.A. which relates to the modification

Jenne, 721 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); § 61.14, Fla. Stat. (2000). Here, the court did not consider

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Schulman v. Schulman, Fla.App.3rd

...compensatory fines, and may order any other relief permitted by law. Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. Instructions for Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.950(g), Motion for Civil Contempt And/Or Return of Child(ren) (03/15)...

...ay order any other relief permitted by law. Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. Instructions for Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.960, Motion for Civil Contempt/Enforcement (03/15) - 417 - Remember, a person who is NOT an attorney is called a nonlawyer....

...ty, or remarriage of Obligee, whichever occurs first. The alimony may be modified or terminated based upon either a substantial change in circumstances, or the existence of a supportive relationship in accordance with section 61.14, Florida Statutes. b._____ Bridge-the-Gap....

...whichever occurs first. The alimony may be modified or terminated based upon either a substantial change in circumstances or the existence of a supportive relationship in accordance with section 61.14, Florida Statutes. b._____Bridge-the-Gap....

...a. ______ Permanent Periodic. The permanent periodic alimony is _____ modified _____ terminated based upon either _____ a substantial change in circumstances, OR _____ the existence of a supportive relationship in accordance with Section 61.14, Florida Statutes. Obligor shall pay modified permanent periodic alimony to Obligee in the amount of $_________ per month, payable _____ in accordance with Obligor’s employer’s payroll cycle, and in any event...

...party, or remarriage of Obligee, whichever occurs first. The alimony may be modified or terminated based upon either a substantial change in circumstances or the existence of a supportive relationship in accordance with section 61.14, Florida Statutes. b._____Bridge-the-Gap....

...This alimony shall continue until modified by court order, the death of either party, or remarriage of Obligee, whichever occurs first. The alimony may be modified or terminated based upon either a substantial change in circumstances, or a supportive relationship in accordance with section 61.14, Florida Statutes. b....

...The trial court found that the former husband had the ability to pay more than the amount of alimony actually awarded, *1225 therefore, it should not have reserved jurisdiction for any increases in alimony without the necessary proof of a substantial change in circumstances. See § 61.14, Fla....

actual present ability to comply with the order.” § 61.14(5)(a), Fla.Stat. (1995). This order does neither

invoking Florida’s supportive relationship statute section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2011),1 notwithstanding the

jurisdiction to modify the amount of child support. Section 61.14(a), Florida Statutes (2012), specifically permits

residency. See § 61.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); § 61.14(1), Fla. Stat. (2001); Vero v. Vero, 659 So.2d

modification of a divorce decree in the face of section 61.14 which specifically dealt with modification of

Judgment under the terms and provisions of Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, and the Court will consider

not subject to modification under § 65.15 (now § 61.14) Fla.Stat, F.S.A. In a separate order the court

Simmons, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 325; F.S.1967, Section 61.14, F.S.A. Normally where a change in circumstances

determination to end the health and accident coverage. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1985), empowers trial courts

judge who was a stranger to the original suit. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977), authorizes modification

jurisdiction to grant such relief pursuant to section 61.14, whether or not the original court expressly

Reversed and remanded. . Effective July 1, 1992, section 61.14, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992) provides, in part:

in evaluating need and ability to pay alimony); § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (governing changes in alimony

part) (“Florida courts uniformly agree that section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes, does not allow modification

We disagree and reverse. By the enactment of Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979), the Legislature has

benefits, .... (Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 61.14) Florida is among the jurisdictions following the

for unpaid child support payments provided in section 61.14(6), Florida Statutes, to be recorded? In sum:

and resides with him or her. § 61.14(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015). Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2015), sets

County is reversed upon a holding that (1) under Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1987), the appellant-wife

jurisdiction is derived from our reading of Section 61.14(1) of the Florida Statutes, (1977) although

additionally alleged bases for modification. See § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016); see also Wolfe v. Wolfe

property settlement agreements are non-modifiable. § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1985); Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So.2d

modification of child support by virtue of Section 61.14, Florida Statutes. However, irrespective of

considered in modification proceedings under section 61.14”). Notably, section 61.08(2) requires, among

supportive relationship within the meaning of section 61.14(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), the supportive

judgment, and the special venue provision, Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, to a modification of a support

Husband’s present ability to pay as required by Section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes, and in failing to consider

v. Chovnick, 369 So.2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); § 61.14(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992). Reversed and remanded

under section 409.2564(ll)(b), Florida Statutes. § 61.14(ll)(b). The statute appears to make an award of

modification upon a timely and proper showing under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979). Cantor v. Cantor,

substantial change m circumstances had occurred. See § 61.14, Fla.Stat. Another allegation in the wife’s petition

jurisdiction to terminate or modify alimony awards. § 61.14(1), Fla.Stat.(1981). Appellant is incorrect when

successor judge may modify a judgment pursuant to F.S. 61.14, F.S.A., but that he may not make substantial

change in circumstances at some future date. (See F.S. 61.14(1)) Anticipated future changes in the circumstances

ongoing nature of family proceedings. See generally § 61.14(1)(a) ("[T]he court may modify an order of

that issue was never addressed. We note that section 61.14(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), provides that

aid in a modification proceeding pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979). To increase the wife’s

amount of alimony or support as equity requires. § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1979); see Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So

an order of child support brought pursuant to § 61.14(1). The fact that the order for child support was

modification thereof if properly presented pursuant to § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

...ellee, Al Feldman, pay Alda $500 per month as alimony and $2,250 per month as child support. Upon the minor son, Marc, reaching the age of 21 or Alda remarrying, these sums were to be modified. Subsequently, in November 1973, Al Feldman, pursuant to § 61.14, Fla....

...of the alimony award on or about February 1, 1976 upon proper notice and hearing by either side. Alda Feldman appeals and contends that the chancellor abused his discretion. We cannot agree. The established law is that a chancellor is authorized by § 61.14, Fla....

costs retroactive to March 2010. See § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“Except as otherwise

circumstances or the financial ability of the part[y]_” § 61.14(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). A review of Mr. Whitney’s

automatic reduction of the support payment. See § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1987); Lee v. Lee, 157 Fla. 439, 26

Harrell v. Harrell, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 214; § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. (formerly § 65.15). For the

AFFIRMED. SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . Section 61.14(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), provides in

support as provided for therein, proceeding under § 61.14(4) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Attached to the petition was

found at the beginning of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family

a modification within the meaning of either section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1995), or case law. We agree

the ambit of rules 1.540 and 12.540. Rather, section 61.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), which does not

Taplin, 341 So.2d 1064 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1975). Reversed.

subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2003), allows the court to

proceedings, Fort v. Fort, 90 So.2d 313 (Fla.1956); § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1981); see Underwood v. Underwood,

vacate the “husband’s home.” We hold that Fla.Stat. § 61.14 authorizes the consideration of the wife’s petition

2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and citing section 61.14, Florida Statutes). Affirmed. WARNER, POLEN

of alimony, if any, to be awarded," and section 61.14(1)(b)1 provides that "[t]he court must

its incorporation into the final judgment. Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes, provides: Modification

parties if such shall occur, as provided for in § 61.14 Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The judgment appealed from is

157 So. 3d 332, 337-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)). Section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), provides for

such be applied for and properly allowable under § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Poe v. Poe, Fla.App.1972, 263

from availing herself of the provisions of Section 61.14, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., relative to modification

v. Lee, 157 Fla. 439, 26 So.2d 177 (1946). Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1979), provides the parties

final judgment allowing alimony to the wife (Section 61.14, F.S.1967, F.S.A.), there is no statutory authority

claims this was error, and we agree. Fla.Stat. § 61.14 (1973) which relates to the modification of alimony

would always be open to consider this matter. See: § 61.14, Fla.Stat.). We also see no reason for the trial

prejudice when she refused to amend further. Section 61.14(1), Fla.Stat. (1977) provides: When the parties

Therefore, the trial judge denied modification. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1999) provides: Enforcement

modification is requested and supported by the evidence. § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1983); Lewis v. Lewis, 450 So.2d 1123

fall under the special venue provisions of Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, relating to modification

jurisdiction) either in Pinellas or Brevard county. § 61.14; § 61.17, Fla. Stat. (1985). All circuit courts

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(h) and Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981). Such an order does

in the father's child support obligation, see § 61.14, Fla. Stat. Affirmed.

in the father's child support obligation, see § 61.14, Fla. Stat. Affirmed.

in the father’s child support obligation, see § 61.14, Fla. Stat. Affirmed.

...rt for a modification of the aforesaid alimony provision or any judgment or decree into which the provisions of this Agreement shall be incorporated with respect to alimony or spousal support to be paid by the Husband to the Wife whether pursuant to Section 61.14[,] Florida Statutes[,] or any other provision or authority....

age or the disability of nonage is removed. § 61.14(9), Fla. Stat. However, Respondent's obligation

venue is proper in Seminole County, pursuant to section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes. We agree and reverse.

...male" within the meaning of the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement (the MSA). The Former Husband cross-appeals. He challenges the trial court's findings that the Former Wife was not engaged in a "supportive relationship" within the meaning of section 61.14(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), and that there was no substantial, permanent change in the circumstances of the parties that would support a reduction or termination of the alimony obligation....

...al change in circumstances as follows: (1) the Former Husband had not proven a substantial change of circumstances; and (2) "it [did] not appear [that] the Former Wife is engaged in a 'supportive relationship' as envisioned within Florida Statute Section 61.14(1)(b)." However, the trial court also found that the Former Wife had "developed a relationship with [Mr....

...The question that we are called upon to decide is whether the circumstances surrounding Mr. Doe's presence in the home and the relationship between him and the Former Wife amounted to cohabitation within the meaning of the MSA. In addressing this question, we need not consider the application of section 61.14(1)(b). The legislature enacted section 61.14(1)(b) in 2005 to "provide an alternate method to a court to reduce or terminate alimony, without first having to find that there has been a change in financial circumstances, as is the case in current law." S. Comm. on Judiciary, CS for SB 152 (2005) Staff Analysis 12 (Feb. 25, 2005); Buxton -7- v. Buxton, 963 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting the Senate Staff Analysis). In accordance with section 61.14(1)(b)(1), "[t]he court may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed between the obligee and a person with whom the obligee resides." See also Buxton, 963 So. 2d at 951-52 (discussing section 61.14(1)(b) and the Senate Staff Analysis of the bill). In this case, the trial court made a specific finding that no supportive relationship existed between the Former Wife and Mr. Doe. Competent, substantial evidence supports this finding. Thus the analysis under section 61.14(1)(b) stops at the initial step; we need not give further consideration to the effect of the statute....

to decrease or increase the amount of alimony. § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006); Bedell v. Bedell, 583

Supportive Relationship-a relationship, defined in section 61.14(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, existing between an

Supportive Relationship—a relationship, defined in section 61.14(l)(b)l, Florida Statutes, existing between an

Chapter 61, Florida Statutes, and specifically § 61.14 (Enforcement and modification of support, maintenance

petition for modification filed pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes *559(1979). We find no authority

the financial ability of the parties . . . . § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015).

judgment was arguably no longer executory. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1989), extends jurisdiction

supportive relationship with another person. - See § 61.14(1)(b), Fla, Stat. (2015). The former husband properly

true alimony, and thus modifiable pursuant to section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1985), it was error for

modification of the alimony payments under Fla.Stat. § 61.14, F.S.A. upon the grounds that the parties had experienced

He alternatively sought modification under section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), based on the

support and to purge himself of the contempt. See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003); Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So

under changed con- . ditions as provided for in § 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.” The decision in that

amount of . . . alimony provided in the agreement.” § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019). A key factor in

Paras v. Paras, 262 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1983).

...compensatory fines, and may order any other relief permitted by law. Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read "General Information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning *938 of these forms. See also section 61.14, Florida Statutes and rule 12.615, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure....

it embodied an erroneous conclusion of law. See § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1991); Feldman v. Feldman, 317 So.2d

the agreement upon his retirement pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1991). Affirmed.

agreement, was subject to modification pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1985). See Pujals v. Pujals

support delinquency becomes a final judgment. See § 61.14(6)(d), Fla. Stat. (2023) (providing that when a

support can be imposed “as equity requires.” See § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Mr. Spann therefore properly

Brown, 338 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Elkins; § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1983). Here, the husband had completely

parties.” § 61.13(l)(a)2., Fla. Stat.; see also § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (permitting court to order decrease

remand for further proceedings pursuant to section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2014). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

So.2d 348, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) stated: “Section 61.14 may not be manipulated to escape or ignore enforcement

child-support determinations. Accordingly, section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: “[T]he

...nt unchanged. Ms. Brown appeals this order. On appeal, Ms. Brown argues that the trial court could not enter this order without proof of the type of permanent change in circumstances that authorizes an actual reduction in child support. We disagree. Section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), gives the trial court broad authority to enter orders enforcing child support....

to July 1, 1987, pursuant to such amendment. Section 61.14, F.S., relates to the enforcement and modification

2017) (internal quotations omitted). Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2022), “gives an ex-spouse

circumstances so as to withstand a motion to dismiss. § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1981); 25 Fla.Jur.2d Family Law § 483

...She concedes the existence of a supportive relationship, but asserts that the trial court erred by terminating her permanent alimony. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. Buxton v. Buxton, 963 So.2d 950, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The trial court, after using the criteria set forth in section 61.14(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2007), to find a supportive relationship, properly considered the criteria set forth in section 61.08(2) in making its determination to terminate permanent alimony....

in the former wife’s financial circumstances. § 61.14(1), Fla. Stat. (2010); Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So.2d

judge should find the adjustment proper under § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See, e. g„ Ludacer v. Ludacer

no absolute right to those future payments. See § 61.14, Fla. Stat. (allowing for the modification or termination

overlooked controlling Florida law. First, section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), provides in

overlooked controlling Florida law. First, section 61.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), provides in

to continuous review by the court pursuant to § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We conclude that the chancellor

The preceding majority opinion addressed why section 61.14, Florida Statutes—not section 61.08—applies

only a significant “change of circumstances.” Section 61.14(1) Florida Statutes (1975). In contrast, New

modification. The wife next argues that section 61.14, Florida Statutes, provides the court with jurisdiction

the former Wife has the greater net worth. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, authorizes the trial court

discretionary power to amend or alter awards for alimony. § 61.14 Fla.Stat.F.S.A.; Nixon v. Nixon, Fla.App.1967,

relief sought by appellant is authorized by F.S. Section 61.14, F.S.A., relating to agreements for payment

agreement until further order of the court. F.S. Section 61.14, F.S.A., relating to modification of alimony

change in the circumstances of the parties. Fla.Stat. 61.14, F.S.A., (1971); see Carmel v. Carmel, 282

arrearages retroactive to the date of separation. Section 61.14(11), Florida Statutes (2016) provides:

13(l)(a)l.a., Fla. Stat. (2015); see also § 61.14(9), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“Unless otherwise ordered

...for several months. The trial court granted the former wife's motion to transfer venue to the county of her residence, accepting her argument that section 47.011, Florida Statutes, the general venue statute, applied. The former husband had relied on section 61.14, a more particular statute which provides inter alia that a party may apply for a modification of an alimony order or agreement, decreasing or increasing the amount of alimony, by applying to the circuit court in the circuit in which either party resides. See § 61.14(1), Fla....

...she alleged that he had stopped paying). In the instant case, however, it is clear that the former husband seeks an order that will decrease the amount of his alimony obligation to zero, and thus his application falls within the literal language of section 61.14....

LETTS, Judge. The lower court held section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1987), unconstitutional because

modifying the final judgment, we hold that section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1999), allows a trial court

the facts of this case or the law of the state. F.S. 61.14 (1971), F.S.A. Looking about, the husband in

subject to modification by the trial judge, Florida Statute 61.14(1). The appeal is frivolous and is hereby

modification of the alimony award in compliance with § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., if the circumstances, financial

years after the date of the final judgment. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, provides that when a party

...1st DCA 1981); Gilman v. Dozier, 388 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Burgdorf v. Burgdorf, 372 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Nevertheless, support orders entered prior to July 1, 1973, may be modified upon filing a petition for modification pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes....