Case Name: David STUART, Appellant, v. Marilyn K. STUART, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-06-18
Citations: 385 So. 2d 134
Docket Number: No. 79-243
Parties: David STUART, Appellant, v. Marilyn K. STUART, Appellee.
Judges: HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 385
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
David STUART, Appellant, v. Marilyn K. STUART, Appellee.
No. 79-243.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 18, 1980.
L. M. Taylor of L. M. Taylor, Lawyers, North Palm Beach, for appellant.
Valentine Gabaldon, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Sheffield v. Sheffield, 310 So.2d 410 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975), cert. den. 328 So.2d 844 (Fla.1976).
Judge Moore's dissent suggests that the cause be remanded to determine whether the "changed circumstances" warrant modification. While the trial court's order indicates "particular reliance upon Sheffield . . ." supra, it also finds that "the Former Husband has failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances. . . ." Obviously, if a spouse receiving alimony enters into an arrangement which involves living with a member of the opposite sex, that is rather clear evidence of a substantial change of circumstances. There will either be financial or in kind contributions of the new partner to be taken into account, or, if the contributions go from the spouse to the new partner, the fact that the spouse is providing board and room to the new partner is evidence that the fair market value of those and any other contributions is some measure of the extent to which periodic alimony is excessive. Evidence in the record indicates that the meretricious relationship is at an end. Apparently the trial court's determination in this case results from a finding to that effect. Accordingly, our opinion remains unchanged.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
MOORE, J., dissents with opinion.