Case Name: Beverly Faye GLOVER, Appellant, v. Houston B. GLOVER, Jr., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-09-13
Citations: 548 So. 2d 863
Docket Number: No. 88-0532
Parties: Beverly Faye GLOVER, Appellant, v. Houston B. GLOVER, Jr., Appellee.
Judges: DOWNEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 548
Pages: 863–864

Head Matter:
Beverly Faye GLOVER, Appellant, v. Houston B. GLOVER, Jr., Appellee.
No. 88-0532.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 13, 1989.
Joseph A. Murphy, III, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Ronald A. Strauss, Neil Rose and Philip Glatzer of Highsmith, Strauss & Glatzer, P.A., Coconut Grove, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The wife filed a "petition for modification of property settlement agreement" alleging that the alimony provided under the agreement was rehabilitative in nature. The wife requested that the court award her permanent alimony because she was unable to rehabilitate herself. After trial, the court found from the evidence that pursuant to the agreement the wife was to receive monthly payments of $500 until October 1, 1981; that the husband continued to pay some monies to the wife to help with financial problems as late as December of 1983; but that the Petition for Modification was not filed until August of 1984. The court then denied the petition because it lacked jurisdiction to modify rehabilitative alimony when the petition was not filed prior to the expiration of the rehabilitative period.
Based upon the petition and the requests made therein, the trial court was correct. The case law is very clear that a petition for modification of rehabilitative alimony must be filed before the time for making the payments expires for the trial court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the issues. Griffin v. Griffin, 502 So.2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Veach v. Veach, 407 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Myrick v. Myrick, 402 So.2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Even the limited exception to that rule found in Monihon v. Monihon, 492 So.2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), is not applicable here.
We therefore affirm the final judgment of the trial court.
DOWNEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.
WESSEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge, concurs specially with opinion.