Case Name: Alan STOLER, Appellant, v. Barbara Ann STOLER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1979-10-02
Citations: 376 So. 2d 253
Docket Number: No. 78-1261
Parties: Alan STOLER, Appellant, v. Barbara Ann STOLER, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 376
Pages: 253–256

Head Matter:
Alan STOLER, Appellant, v. Barbara Ann STOLER, Appellee.
No. 78-1261.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 2, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1979.
Sinclair, Louis, Siegel & Heath and John L. Zavertnik and Paul A. Louis, Miami, for appellant.
Leonard L. Kimball, North Miami Beach, Hal P. Dekle, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Alan Stoler appeals from certain of the financial portions of a final judgment dissolving his marriage to appel-lee Barbara Ann Stoler. The findings of the trial court include the following:
"4. There are two children born as a result of this marriage, to-wit: LINDA STOLER, age 14, and RICHARD STO-LER, age 10.
"5. Petitioner wife has sustained the material allegations of her Petition by sufficient competent testimony which was established that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken.
"6. That the husband is a successful dentist well able to financially provide adequately for his wife and two minor children. That the wife is not gainfully employed and is dependent upon the husband for support and sustenance for herself and two children."
Based on the testimony before him, the trial judge awarded the custody of the two minor children to the wife and directed the husband to pay the wife $1,000.00 per month permanent alimony, inserting the provision: "There shall be an annual in crease in support and alimony based upon the U. S. Department of Labor cost of living index." In addition, the husband was required to pay $200.00 per month for child support and to make certain other provisions for the wife, which are not here in controversy.
On this appeal, the husband raises two points: The first is that the trial judge erred in providing in the final judgment for the automatic annual increase in alimony based upon a cost of living index. The second is that the trial judge erred and abused his discretion in awarding permanent instead of rehabilitative alimony.
In Greene v. Greene, 372 So.2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), this court held that such an automatic provision is improper in an order modifying the alimony and support provisions of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We see no reason that the same rule should not apply to final judgments. The statutes and rules of procedure provide an adequate means for the adjustment of alimony to the needs of the recipient and the ability of the partner charged. It is difficult for trial judges to see into the future and determine these factors in advance. While there is a strong probability that the provision inserted might be beneficial, there is also a possibility that it might be unjust. As such, it should not be included in orders allowing alimony. We think that our position in this matter is supported by Richter v. Richter, 344 So.2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So.2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Griffin v. Griffin, 276 So.2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
The trial judge having made his determination that some permanent alimony was proper for the former wife who, after 17 years of marriage is now 37 years of age and is charged with the upbringing of two minor children, we believe we should not substitute our judgment for his. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and Peacock v. Carter, 315 So.2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
Accordingly, the final judgment is modified by striking the following language from paragraph 4 of the "Ordered and Adjudged" portion thereof: "There shall be an annual increase in support and alimony based upon the U. S. Department of Labor cost of living index."
The judgment, as modified, is affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.