Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

JETTE SCHLAPIK, APPELLANT, v. MILES SCHLAPIK, APPELLEE.

PER CURIAM.

We are asked to review an order modifying a final judgment dissolving a marriage upon a record which does not include any of the testimony before the trial judge. It is apparent from the record and the findings of fact that the trial judge heard extensive testimony.

The distinguishing feature in this case is that the trial judge determined that the former wife was not entitled to any alimony after an expiration of four and one-half years from the original award. It is clear that there are circumstances under which alimony awarded may be terminated because of a change of circumstances. See 18 A.L.R.2d 10, 19.

Under the record presented to us, we are unable to determine that the trial judge abused his very broad discretion in this matter. See the rule in Vilas v. Vilas, 1943, 153 Fla. 102, 13 So.2d 807; and Coggan v. Coggan, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 368.

AFFIRMED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SCHLAPIK v. SCHLAPIK
(Mar 30, 1976)