Pimm v. Pimm

Supreme Court of Florida
601 So. 2d 534 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A spouse's voluntary retirement may be considered a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of alimony, provided the retirement is reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.

Facts:

Maurice C. Pimm and Carolyn M. Pimm divorced in 1975 after a twenty-nine-year marriage.
A property settlement agreement, incorporated into the final judgment, required Maurice to pay Carolyn weekly alimony.
The agreement stated that alimony would cease upon Carolyn's remarriage but was silent on the issue of Maurice's retirement.
At the time of the divorce, Maurice was a civil engineer and president of his own company; he later became a salaried employee.
Carolyn was a homemaker who was never employed outside the home, but she had accumulated significant liquid assets from an inheritance and property sales since the divorce.
In 1988, as Maurice approached age sixty-five, he planned to retire from his position.

Procedural Posture:

Maurice Pimm (husband) filed a petition for modification in the trial court, seeking to terminate his alimony obligation upon his retirement.
Carolyn Pimm (wife) counter-petitioned for an increase in alimony.
The trial court denied both petitions, ruling that voluntary retirement cannot be considered a change of circumstance sufficient to modify alimony.
Maurice Pimm, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
The Second District Court of Appeal initially affirmed the trial court but, upon rehearing, reversed its decision and certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a spouse's voluntary retirement a change of circumstance that a court may consider when deciding whether to modify an alimony obligation?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Harding

Yes. The post-judgment retirement of a spouse who is obligated to make alimony payments is a change of circumstance that may be considered upon a petition to modify such payments. The court rejected a bright-line rule that a 'voluntary' act can never support modification, finding instead that a reasonable retirement should be considered as part of the total circumstances. The court established that when determining whether a voluntary retirement is reasonable, a trial court must consider the payor's age, health, motivation, the type of work performed, and the customary retirement age for that profession. Age sixty-five is a presumptive age of reasonableness for retirement. However, even a reasonable retirement does not automatically justify modification; the court must also consider the needs of the receiving spouse and ensure that the modification would not place them in 'peril of poverty,' taking into account any assets the receiving spouse has accumulated. This analysis does not apply to child support, which cannot be modified based on voluntary retirement.

Analysis:

This decision marks a significant shift from the rigid rule that a voluntary change in circumstances, such as retirement, could not be a basis for modifying alimony. It establishes a flexible, fact-intensive test that balances the payor spouse's right to retire at a reasonable age against the financial needs of the recipient spouse. This precedent requires courts to engage in a detailed inquiry into the reasonableness of the retirement and its financial consequences, likely increasing litigation over this issue. By setting sixty-five as a 'presumptive' retirement age, the court provides guidance but leaves room for arguments based on the specific facts of each case.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Pimm v. Pimm (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"