Frantz v. Frantz

Doris FRANTZ, Appellant, v. Leonard FRANTZ, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 26, 1984.

Rehearing Denied August 10, 1984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1984-06-26

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1991

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“an increase in the [paying spouse's] ability [to pay] would not in itself justify an upward modification of alimony if the [recipient spouse's] needs are already fully met by the existing award or otherwise.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 561 So. 2d 1179 - Bedell v. Bedell

Relies on Jaffee v. Jaffee · 386 So. 2d 1214 - Powell v. Powell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-06-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *430 Smith & Mandler and Jonathan A. Heller, Miami Beach, for appellant.

¶2Richard H.W. Maloy, Coral Gables, for appellee.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., HUBBART, J., and WINIFRED J. SHARP, Associate Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The order denying the ex-wife an increase in alimony is affirmed on the ground that the record supports an application of the principle that

an increase in the husband's ability would not itself justify an upward modification of alimony if the wife's needs are already fully met either by the existing award or otherwise. See generally 10A Fla.Jur. Dissolution of Marriage § 53 (1973).

¶6Powell v. Powell,386 So.2d 1214, 1216, n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

¶7Since both parties were unsuccessful in their respective motions for modification, we likewise find no merit in Ms. Frantz' assertion of error in the denial of her claim for attorney's fees. See Jaffee v. Jaffee,394 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

¶8Affirmed.