TROY OVERTON RHOADES, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARA GRACE RHOADES, 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 First District Court of Appeal reviewed a modified dissolution judgment in which the trial court reduced the husband's child support obligation while maintaining his permanent periodic alimony award. The court affirmed the alimony award but reversed the child support reduction, holding that the husband's prior support of the wife's children from a previous marriage was not a proper basis for reducing support of the parties' biological child.
The court affirmed the permanent periodic alimony award as supported by competent substantial evidence with no abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The court reversed the reduction in child support, holding that the husband's contributions to the support of the wife's children from a previous marriage—who were independent at the time of dissolution—have no bearing on the needs of the parties' minor child or the husband's present ability to pay, and therefore cannot properly serve as a basis for reducing child support.
[1] Equitable considerations, such as a party's prior contributions to the support of a former spouse's children from a previous marriage, are irrelevant to the determination…
[2] A trial court errs in reducing a child support obligation based on factors unrelated to the child's needs or the obligor's present ability to pay.
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“Such equitable considerations as the husband's contribution to the support of the wife's children by a previous marriage, all of whom were independent at the time of the dissolution, have no bearing on the needs of the parties' minor child or the husband's present ability to pay.”
Establishes the holding that prior support of stepchildren from a previous marriage cannot serve as a basis for reducing current child support obligations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn the final judgment of dissolution, the husband was ordered to pay $200 per month in child support and $200 per month in permanent periodic alimony …
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 Cross-Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from an order modifying a final judgment of dissolution. The appealed order reduced the amount of the husband’s child support obligation but left intact an award of $200.00 per month permanent periodic alimony. The husband appeals the alimony award; the wife cross-appeals the modification of the child support obligation. We affirm the alimony award, but reverse the reduction in child support.
In the final judgment of dissolution, custody of the parties’ younger child was awarded to the wife and the husband was ordered to pay $200.00 per month support in addition to the $200.00 per month in alimony. By way of a motion for rehearing, the husband sought reconsideration of the alimony award alleging that such an award was contrary to the evidence. In particular, the motion referred to the fact that the wife had brought four minor children into the marriage whom the husband had provided for until they reached their majority.
Pursuant to this motion, the order modifying final judgment was entered. In pertinent part it held as follows:
2. On rehearing the Court finds that it failed to give proper consideration to the contributions made by the Respondent-Husband to the support of the minor children by the Wife’s previous marriage in determining the equities between the parties, therefore, it is ORDERED that said Final Judgment entered herein be and the same hereby is amended to provide that the support of the minor child of the parties shall be reduced from the sum of $200.00 per month to the sum of $150.00 per month, nunc pro tunc to September 1, 1981.
Such equitable considerations as the husband’s contribution to the support of the wife’s children by a previous marriage, all of whom were independent at the time of the dissolution, have no bearing on the needs of the parties’ minor child or the husband’s present ability to pay. Therefore, it was error to reduce the husband’s support obligation on that basis, and the modification of the final judgment is reversed. The award of permanent periodic alimony is supported by competent substantial evidence, and the husband has demonstrated no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge warranting interference by this court. It is therefore affirmed. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Veach v. Veach, 407 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), prior child support awards, see Burrows v. Burrows, 384 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), or both, see Brooks v. Brooks, 423 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Rhoades v. Rhoades, 416 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 384 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), it has yet to be applied explicitly to a situation in which a modification of a prior custody award was sought. Moreover, the pre-Canakaris rule governing custod…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)