TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE DISCRETION IN REDUCING ALIMONY AWARD WHERE
HUSBAND'S INCOME DECREASED AND WHERE WIFE NO LONGER HAD A NEED FOR THE ORIGINAL
AMOUNT OF ALIMONY AWARDED.
The Final Judgment awarded
$11,000/month in alimony to the Wife. After a series of employees quit, the
Husband was left to man his business alone and shortly thereafter, the Husband
sold the practice to Veterinary Clinics of America. As a result, the Husband's
income was reduced as he began working on a commission-only basis. The trial
court found that the Husband's decision to sell was prudent and necessary and
that the Wife's need was not as high as originally calculated. As such, the
trial court granted the requested downward modification and the District Court
affirmed:
1.
"Generally, to justify an alimony modification, the moving party must
establish: (1) a substantial change in circumstances; (2) the change was not
contemplated at the time of the final judgment of dissolution; and (3) the
change is sufficient, material, permanent, and involuntary."
2. "The
record supports the trial court's conclusion that business exigencies prompted
the sale, the consideration received was reasonable, the sale enabled the
Former Husband to continue working as a veterinarian until retirement age, and
the sale proceeds ensured long-term security for both the Former Wife and the
Former Husband."
3. "Although
the Former Husband did not retire, we observe that involuntariness of income
loss may no longer be a bright-line requirement for alimony modification . . .
. Here, the trial court's finding that the Former Husband's decision to sell
his practice was "prudent" satisfies the "reasonable"
standard of Pimm and Rahn concerning that voluntary loss of
income."
4. "The trial court did not err in finding a
number of the items [contained in the wife's financial affidavit] unnecessary
and concluding that the former Wife did not need alimony of $11,000 per
month."
No comments:
Post a Comment