VERA JUNE FLOYD, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL BRIAN FLOYD, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this family law appeal, the court reversed a trial judge's reduction of alimony and child support but affirmed the modification of visitation rights. The court held that where a settlement agreement contemplates the parties' financial circumstances, the obligor seeking reduction bears a heavy burden to demonstrate substantial changed circumstances.
The court reversed the reduction of alimony and child support, holding the trial judge abused his discretion because the husband failed to demonstrate substantial changed circumstances and the trial judge found his current financial condition was contemplated at the time of agreement. The court affirmed the modification of visitation rights, as trial judges have wide discretion in determining visitation privileges.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in reducing child support and alimony when the evidence shows that the current financial condition of the obligor was contemplated by…
[2] Where alimony and child support awards are based on an agreement of the parties, the obligor bears a heavier burden in seeking a reduction of payments than is otherwise r…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in reducing child support and alimony where the evidence showed that the current financial condition of the husband was contemplated by the parties at the time of the stipulation and agreement.”
Establishes the core holding that contemplated circumstances cannot support reduction of support obligations based on settlement agreements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marriage was dissolved pursuant to a property settlement and custody agreement that included permanent periodic alimony, child support, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
The appellant/wife contends the trial judge abused his discretion in (1) reducing alimony and child support and (2) setting specific visitation rights. We reverse as to alimony and child support. We affirm as to the visitation rights.
The final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties ratified and incorporated their property settlement and child custody agreement which included permanent periodic alimony for the wife, child support for the children, and reasonable rights of visitation with the children. Six and one-half months later the husband filed a petition to reduce child support, terminate alimony, and set specific visitation rights. The husband attempted to demonstrate changed circumstances by claiming his expenses had increased by virtue of his military reassignment from Korea — where he was stationed at the time of the original dissolution proceedings — to Fort Gordon, Georgia. He testified he had certain expenses at Fort Gordon which he did not have while stationed in Korea. However, the trial judge specifically found that the husband’s expenses in connection with his transfer to Fort Gordon either were contemplated or should have been contemplated at the time he signed the agreement.
We hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in reducing child support and alimony where the evidence showed that the current financial condition of the husband was contemplated by the parties at the time of the stipulation and agreement. Ashburn v. Ashburn, 350 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Coe v. Coe, 352 So. 2d 559 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Furthermore, the needs of the children have not diminished and the husband did not demonstrate a substantial change in the circumstances of either party. Where, as here, the awards in the final judgment were based on an agreement of the parties, the obligor has a heavier burden in seeking a reduction of payments than is otherwise required. We find that the husband in this case failed to carry that burden. Burdack v. Burdack, 371 So. 2d 528 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
We do not find that the trial judge exceeded the permissible limits of his discretion when he modified the final judg ment to grant the husband specific times of visitation with the children. A trial judge is vested with wide discretion in determining whether to modify visitation privileges, and the scope of appellate review is limited. Therefore, we affirm that part of the order concerning visitation. Purvis v. Carter, 326 So. 2d 40 (Fla.4th DCA 1976).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED to the trial court for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burdack v. Friedrich W. Burdack, 371 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Ludmila R. Ashburn v. Ashburn, 350 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- COE v. COE, 352 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Purvis v. Carver, 326 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)