petition was premature. The court reasoned that, because Former Husband had purportedly-just..retired and had no track record of his post-retirement income, his anticipated reduced .ability to pay alimony was speculative. In response, Former Husband argued that irrespective of his income, the court could still grant his petition on the ground that Former Wife no longer had a need for alimony. The trial court disagreed and involuntarily dismissed. Former Husband’s entire petition without prejudice for him to file a new petition in the future. On appeal, band presented evidence establishing that, post-dissolution, Former Wife began receiving additional permanent monthly income and had inherited substantial assets. See Jarrard v. Jarrard, 157 So.3d 332, 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (<HOLDING>); Wiesenfeld v. Wiesenfeld, 95 So.3d 959,
holding that final order for alimony may be modified by trial court on showing of substantial change in circumstances of either party holding remarriage of exspouse and loss of income not to be a substantial change in circumstances holding that receipt of a large inheritance constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying termination of permanent alimony holding that fathers criminal activity resulting in incarceration did not constitute material change in circumstances justifying reduction in or termination of his child support obligations holding that a permanent change in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a reduction of alimony