Case Name: Donald R. WIEDMAN, Appellant, v. Joyce M. WIEDMAN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-12-18
Citations: 610 So. 2d 681
Docket Number: No. 91-2122
Parties: Donald R. WIEDMAN, Appellant, v. Joyce M. WIEDMAN, Appellee.
Judges: PETERSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 610
Pages: 681–686

Head Matter:
Donald R. WIEDMAN, Appellant, v. Joyce M. WIEDMAN, Appellee.
No. 91-2122.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 18, 1992.
Nichole Caruso Seropian, of Law Office of Joe Teague Caruso, P.A., Merritt Island, for appellant.
James R. Dressier, Cocoa Beach, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
DIAMANTES, Judge.
Donald Wiedman appeals the trial court's order which denied his petition to reduce or .terminate the periodic alimony payments that he must pay to Joyce Wiedman, his former wife. Wiedman based his claim for relief upon the fact that he was forced to retire because 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.Stat. (1991). Appellant had initially agreed to the alimony which the trial court set and, therefore, as the party seeking a change, he carries "a heavier than usual burden of proof." Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So.2d 534, 537 (Fla.1992) quoting Tinsley v. Tinsley, 502 So.2d 997, 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
The trial court ruled that appellant failed to sustain his burden of proving entitlement to modification because, although his retirement was involuntary, appellant failed to present any evidence that he is unable to obtain alternative employment suitable to his health or that his employment income potential is any less now than it was at the time of the final judgment. We agree with the trial court that appellant did not meet this burden of proof.
However, unlike the concurring opinion, we conclude that the ruling in Pimm v. Pimm, supra, which considered the issue of whether "voluntary retirement" is a reasonable basis for modifying alimony, is not applicable to this case because here, appellant was subject to an "involuntary retirement". In Pimm v. Pimm, the Florida Supreme Court specifically stated:
In determining whether a voluntary retirement is reasonable, the court must consider the payor's age, health, and motivation for retirement, as well as the type of work the payor performs and the age at which others engaged in that line of work normally retire. The age of sixty-five years has become the traditional and presumptive age of retirement for American workers: many pension benefits maximize at the age of sixty-five; taxpayers receive an additional federal tax credit at the age of sixty-five in recognition of the reduced income which accompanies retirement; under the Social Security Act the definition of "retirement age" includes "65 years of age"; and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 defines "normal retirement age" as including the "time a plan participant attains age 65." Based upon this widespread acceptance of sixty-five as the normal retirement age, we find that one would have a significant burden to show that a voluntary retirement before the age of sixty-five is reasonable.
Voluntary retirement cannot be considered a change of circumstance which would warrant a modification of child support, (footnotes omitted, emphasis added.)
Pimm, 601 So.2d at 537. Obviously, an involuntary retirement may not always be considered the equivalent of a voluntary retirement because different factors and considerations may result in an involuntary retirement, and the effect of such factors and considerations upon the ability to pay alimony may have to be weighed differently-
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's petition for modification and, therefore, affirm the trial court's ruling.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
W. SHARP, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
. We note that the case of Ensley v. Ensley, 578 So.2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) dealt with the initial setting of support where the paying spouse voluntarily terminated employment paying $60,000 per year and, after diligent effort, could only find employment paying $23,920 per year. Because Ensley did not involve a proceeding to modify either support or alimony which was initially set by a court pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the decision does not consider the principles of law peculiarly applicable to a modification proceeding.