Beans v. Beans
The First DCA affirmed an order modifying (reducing) permanent alimony, rejecting the former husband's arguments that were premised on section 61.08 (the original-award alimony statute). The majority held that modification proceedings are governed exclusively by section 61.14, that section 61.08's mandatory factors and net-income limitation do not apply on modification, and that prior decisions to the contrary (Schang, Galligar) were superseded by the 2010 statutory cross-reference amendments. It affirmed under the right-result/wrong-reason doctrine even though no party had cited section 61.14 below or on appeal; Judge Kelsey dissented on preservation and en banc-recession grounds.
Key facts
- Former husband sought modification of permanent alimony award, arguing that the trial court erred by not applying section 61.08's mandatory factors and net-income limitation to the modification proceeding.
- The trial court reduced the permanent alimony award, relying on changed circumstances; the former husband appealed, contending the reduction violated statutory requirements governing alimony awards.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
The majority declares two of its own prior decisions (Schang and Galligar) superseded by statute without en banc review, which family and appellate practitioners will need to account for when briefing alimony… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.