Pimm v. Pimm

Maurice Pimm (plaintiff) and Carolyn Pimm (defendant) divorced in 1975 after 29 years of marriage. At the time of divorce, Maurice was a civil engineer with his own surveying company, and Carolyn was a full-time mother and homemaker, never having worked outside the home. The final divorce judgment ordered Maurice to make weekly alimony payments to Carolyn unless and until she remarried. In 1988, Maurice was almost 65 years old and worked as a salaried employee for the company that had previously purchased his surveying business. Hoping to retire at 65, Maurice filed a petition seeking termination of his alimony obligation upon retirement. Carolyn contested, arguing that voluntary retirement was not a change in circumstance sufficient to support the modification or termination of an alimony obligation under Florida law. She also filed a counterpetition seeking an increase in alimony. The trial court denied both parties’ petitions, declining to make any changes to the existing alimony obligation. The trial court held that, under Florida law, voluntary retirement that was neither mandated by an employer nor necessary because of poor health was not a change in circumstance that could be considered when deciding whether to modify alimony. The district court of appeal reversed, concluding that reasonable voluntary retirement was a factor that could be considered in alimony-modification determinations. However, feeling that the matter was one of public importance, the district court also certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court, asking whether retirement was a circumstance that could be considered alongside other factors when deciding whether to modify an alimony obligation.