Jarrard v. Jarrard
157 So. 3d 332
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- 2004 dissolution with stipulated final judgment: Jarrard to pay $4200/month permanent alimony, life insurance, and attorney's fees; marital and nonmarital assets modest.
- At divorce, Jarrard earned about $150,000/year in Louisiana; both parties shared military retirement benefits totaling about $2000/month each.
- Ms. Jarrard earned about $10,000/year; equitable distribution was straightforward due to modest assets.
- Post-divorce, Jarrard’s income declined after 2004; he remained paying alimony until unemployment in 2011 and later accepted a commission-based Florida job in 2012.
- From 2012–2013, Jarrard’s income fluctuated widely, averaging well under $6000/month in 2013, with alimony consuming over 70% of his income for two years.
- Jarrard petitioned to modify alimony multiple times; the trial court denied modification and ordered arrearage accrual; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a substantial, permanent change in circumstances. | Jarrard | Jacqueline | Change deemed substantial and permanent; remand for modification decision. |
| Whether the correct standard of review was applied on the modification ruling. | Jarrard | Jacqueline | Mixed standard applies; reversal and remand to permit modification proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Perez, 973 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (permanency shown by long-term income loss with no end in sight)
- Buxton v. Buxton, 963 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (mixed review in alimony modification)
- Freeman v. Freeman, 615 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (requirement of a forever change would be impossible)
- Dippold v. Dippold, 712 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (substantial change can justify reduction of support)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 37 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (involuntariness of income loss may be considered in modification)
- Eisemann v. Eisemann, 5 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (pleading and factual sufficiency reviewed de novo for mixed issues)
- Thyrre v. Thyrre, 963 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (modification retroactive to filing date in appropriate cases)
- State v. Townsend, 40 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (de novo review of pure questions of law within mixed standard)