Case Name: Dennis W. HILLIER, Appellant, v. Sylvia IGLESIAS, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-05-04
Citations: 901 So. 2d 947
Docket Number: No. 4D03-4204
Parties: Dennis W. HILLIER, Appellant, v. Sylvia IGLESIAS, Appellee.
Judges: STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 901
Pages: 947–950

Head Matter:
Dennis W. HILLIER, Appellant, v. Sylvia IGLESIAS, Appellee.
No. 4D03-4204.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 4, 2005.
Rehearing Denied June 3, 2005.
Neil B. Jagolinzer of Christiansen & Jacknin, West Palm Beach, for- appellant.
Jorge M. Cestero of Sasser, Cestero & Sasser, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
A former husband sought a modification in alimony, which he had been paying for 20 years. Although his former wife had long since become an attorney and was now earning approximately $150,000 per annum without his alimony, the trial court denied his request and increased the amount. We reverse.
The marriage was dissolved in 1983 when she was a stay-at-home mother. The final judgment awarded $5,000 in monthly permanent periodic alimony based on his annual income of $338,000. Eleven years later, he sought to reduce the amount, arguing that her circumstances had materially improved because she would soon graduate from law school that year and had already procured employment. The trial court denied any change, determining that although she had become rehabilitated and was then set to earn sufficient income to support herself, the cost of living has eroded the purchasing power of her alimony award, necessitating the continuance of alimony to support her at the standard at which she lived during the marriage.
Seven years after that attempt, in 2002, he again sought to have the amount reduced, or even terminated. She responded .with a petition for an increase. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that he had shown a substantial change in her circumstances because her income had increased sufficiently to meet the greater part of her needs at the level established during '.the marriage. The trial court calculated that she needed from $19,000-22,000 monthly to achieve the marital-standard of living. Fixing her monthly income at $17,167, the court reduced the amount of alimony to $1,833 monthly. She moved for rehearing, arguing that the court had included the alimony in fixing her monthly income at $17,167, and that the court should have increased the amount she receives from him by $1,833. The trial court agreed with her argument and entered an order increasing the alimony award to $6,833 per month. He appeals.
In Florida the purpose for permanent, periodic alimony is to provide a former spouse with the necessities of life. As the court explained in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201-02 (Fla.1980)
"Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life,to a former spouse as they have been established by the marriage of the parties. The two primary elements to be considered when determining permanent periodic alimony are the needs of one spouse for the funds and the ability of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds. The criteria to be used in establishing this need include the parties' earning ability, age, health, education, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed during its course, and the value of the parties' estates."
Id.; see also Welsh v. Welsh, 160 Fla. 380, 35 So.2d 6, 9 (1948) ("The basis for the allowance of permanent alimony is the necessities of the wife and the financial ability of the husband to supply the necessity."); Collins v. Collins, 153 Fla. 10, 13 So.2d 445, (1943) (rule is that alimony should be determined by the necessities of the one and the abilities of the other); Brown v. Brown, 300 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Sanders v. Sanders, 125 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) ("The principle is settled in this state that the amount of alimony to be awarded a wife in a divorce proceeding shall be determined and controlled by the necessities of the wife and the financial ability of the husband to meet those necessities."). The amount or level of alimony is affected by the standard of living established during the marriage of the parties. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1201. Section 61.14 governs the modification of alimony awards, providing that when the "circumstances or the financial ability of either party changes" either party may apply for modification. § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004).
She contends that an increase in alimony was necessary because inflation has severely affected her ability to provide for herself. But there is no evidence in this record showing that inflation has had any affect on her ability to support herself. Waldman v. Waldman, 520 So.2d 87, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) rev. denied, 531 So.2d 169 (Fla.1988) ("While a loss in the dollar's purchasing power is a relevant factor in considering a modification of alimony . there must be a showing that the national problem of inflation impacts specifically on the individual claiming inflation as the basis for modification. Inflation must have in fact created the need.").
Thus, we reverse the trial court's upward modification, finding that she failed to establish any basis to increase alimony. Townsend v. Townsend, 585 So.2d 468, 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ("We reverse the modification because the husband failed to establish a permanent, unanticipated, substantial change in the financial circumstances of one or both parties. Such proof is a prerequisite to a trial court's authority to exercise discretion to modify permanent alimony."). We affirm in all other respects.
STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
FARMER, C.J., specially concurs with opinion.