With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". substantial and unanticipated sources of post-dissolution income. The matter proceeded to a two day trial. On the first day of trial,- the trial court heard extensive testimony concerning-Former Husband’s decreased ability to pay alimony due to his purported retirement the week before trial. As to the issue of Former Wife’s alleged reduced or eliminat-éd need for alimony, the undisputed evidence established that Former Wife was currently receiving'lifetime 'monthly annuity payments and had inherited a considerable amount of assets from-her family and boyfriend. At the beginning of the second day of trial, and before Former Husband was given the opportunity to present the testimony of two additional witnesses, the trial court announced that it believed the (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Former Husband presented a prima

A: holding that a permanent change in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a reduction of alimony
B: holding that receipt of a large inheritance constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying termination of permanent alimony
C: holding that final order for alimony may be modified by trial court on showing of substantial change in circumstances of either party
D: holding that former husband was not entitled to evidentiary hearing on petition to modify alimony where he failed to demonstrate substantial change in circumstances since entry of a prior order denying modification of alimony from which he did not appeal
B.