Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and Rita (W) were divorced in 1999. H was ordered to pay alimony of $2,000 per month for a period of 120 months. In the original dissolution decree, H's monthly gross income was determined to be $8,211 per month or $98,532 per year. Rita's income was determined to be $1,337 per month or $16,044 per year. On March 31, 2005, H filed a complaint seeking a reduction of his alimony obligation, alleging that since 1999, his income decreased and W's income increased. The trial court denied the motion. H did not appeal but two months later filed a second motion. The court limited the evidence at the second hearing, allowing only evidence of changes which occurred after December 20, 2005, the date the first hearing was held. H has worked as a chiropractic physician for 23 years and was having issues with 'arthritic changes' in his knees and hands, which limit him to a degree in his work as a chiropractor. H did not have health insurance at the time of the second modification hearing because he does not have funds to pay for insurance. H has not been able to find additional employment. Tax returns showed that H's net income from self-employment was $50,047 in 2005 and $50,293 in 2006 well below his prior numbers. H eventually filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and received a discharge. H still owes $21,000 to the Internal Revenue Service and is making payments of $250 per month to pay off that debt. H deeded his home back to the mortgage lender after foreclosure proceedings were initiated. H testified that his net income was about $3,000 per month. W's tax returns show income of $39,267 for 2003 and $64,708 for 2004. These amounts do not include the $24,000 in alimony Rita received in each of those years. H's net income in 2005 was $9,408, and in 2006, H suffered a net loss of $37,867. In the first 8 months of 2007, H's net income was $10,708. Rita cashed in her IRA in the amount of $23,800 to meet her monthly living expenses of $3,633. W owned a beauty salon. Thereafter, H owned a drycleaning business, and in 2005, she and her son opened a coffee shop. Since then, they opened another coffee shop. H and her son also acquired some investment property, which cost $195,000. W relied upon her alimony award when she purchased the investment property. The court dismissed H's second complaint to modify alimony. H was required to show a material change in circumstances since January 26, 2006. H appealed, and the court affirmed. The Court of Appeals noted that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties or their privities in any future litigation. H appealed again.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co