DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“retroactivity is the rule rather than the exception which guides the trial court's application of discretion when modification of alimony or child support is granted.”
19 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: FRANK LEYTE-VIDAL v. VERONICA LEYTE-VIDAL (fladistctapp, 2022-10-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) FRANK LEYTE-VIDAL v. VERONICA LEYTE-VIDAL
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
retroactivity is the rule rather than the exception which guides the trial court's application of discretion when modification of alimony or child support is granted.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) THOMAS NANGLE v. MARY NANGLE
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
In short, the order failed to address two requisite factors: need and ability to pay. 1 We therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court for further 1 The former husband briefly argues that any alimony modification should be retroactive. “[I]t is within the trial court’s discretion to determine whether to make the modification retroactive.” DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JASON NUTTLE v. CHRISTINE NUTTLE
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holli Poe Dennis, Former Wife v. Michael Dennis, Former Husband
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“Retroac-tivity is the rule rather than the exception which guides the trial court’s application of discretion when modification of alimony or child support is granted,” DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gurdian v. Gurdian
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“Retroactivity is the rule rather than the exception which guides the trial court’s application of discretion when modification of alimony or child support is granted.” DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also Thyrre, 963 So.2d at 862 (quoting DeSantis in support of same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hedstrom v. Hedstrom
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Acosta v. Renta, 84 So.3d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cash v. Cash
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walters v. Walters
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “[A]n award of retroactive alimony must be based on the receiving spouse’s need for alimony and the paying spouse’s ability to pay.” Valentine v. Van Sickle, 42 So.3d 267, 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Acosta v. RENTA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Thyrre v. Thyrre, 963 So.2d 859, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that as to the modification of alimony, “there is a presumption of retroactivity which applies unless there is a basis for determining that the award should not be retroactive”); DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“Retroactivity is the rule rather than the exception which guides the trial court’s application of discretion when modification of alimony or child support is granted.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thyrre v. Thyrre
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
"Retroactivity is the rule rather than the exception which guides the trial court's application of discretion when modification of alimony or child support is granted." DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Young
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (citation omitted).
cited Cited "see" Woolf v. Woolf
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wilson v. Wilson (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Leonard v. Leonard, 971 So.2d 263, 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); see also Thyrre v. Thyrre, 963 So.2d 859, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“ ‘Retroactivity is the rule rather than the exception ....’”) (quoting DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)).
Joseph Gregory DESANTIS, Appellant,
v.
Ann SMITH, f/k/a Ann Smith Desantis, Appellee.
93-0358.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 6, 1994.
634 So. 2d 796
Per Curiam.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

[*797] Frank B. Kessler, Lake Worth, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Joseph Gregory DeSantis, appeals from an order decreasing his alimony obligation from $600.00 per month to $450.00 per month, requiring that he pay seventy-five percent of his former wife's attorney's fees in an amount left for future determination, and denying his request to make the reduction retroactive to the date of filing the application for reduction.

Retroactivity is the rule rather than the exception which guides the trial court's application of discretion when modification of alimony or child support is granted. However, it is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether to make the modification retroactive, and we find no abuse of discretion on this record. See Bloom v. Bloom, 503 So.2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). We therefore affirm the action of the trial court in that regard, but reverse as to the other aspects of the order granting modification.

The evidence shows that appellee, the former wife, has a substantially enhanced net worth, a slight increase in net income, and a slight decrease in monthly expenses. Her overall financial picture is substantially brighter than in 1982, the time of the prior modification. Appellant, on the other hand, while enjoying a modest improvement in net worth, has suffered a substantial reduction in net available income. While his expenses are less than in 1982, he still experiences monthly expenses substantially in excess of his income.

One countervailing factor in our analysis is the fact that an expert testified that under appropriate circumstances appellant could obtain employment that would substantially increase his current income. Appellant, on the other hand, submitted evidence of a reasonable but unsuccessful effort to obtain employment at a salary level commensurate with his education and training.

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that appellant has shown a substantial change in circumstances warranting a reduction in alimony. See England v. England, 520 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). See also Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1992).

While the trial court reduced appellant's alimony obligation from $600.00 per month to $450.00 per month, the evidence supports and indeed requires a much more substantial reduction. For that reason we reverse and remand for further appropriate proceedings. Similarly, the record does not support an award of attorney's fees for appellee. The parties should be required to bear their own costs and attorney's fees.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., and MAGER, GERALD, Senior Judge, concur.