JEROME ANDREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
GWENDOLYN D. ANDREWS, 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 child support modification appeal, the former husband sought to eliminate or substantially reduce his $150 monthly support obligation for his youngest daughter. The trial court granted a partial modification, reducing the obligation to $135 per month, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the husband failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting the requested relief.
The court affirmed the trial court's partial modification, finding no abuse of discretion. The husband failed to demonstrate a substantial change of circumstances sufficient to justify eliminating or substantially reducing his support obligation, as his argument that he could not afford to support both households was unrealistic given that two households cannot be maintained as cheaply as one.
[1] A party seeking modification of child support obligations must demonstrate a substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the original support order.
[2] Trial court decisions on child support modification are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse.
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“In order to obtain a modification of child support obligations, the party seeking modification must demonstrate that there has been a substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the order awarding support.”
Establishes the legal standard for child support modification
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 were divorced on February 1, 1988, with three daughters born of the marriage. The husband was awarded custody of twin daughters, and the w…
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 Petition For Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The former husband seeks review of the trial court’s order partially denying his petition for modification of his child support obligations. We affirm.
These parties were divorced on 1 February 1988. There were three children born of the marriage. Husband was awarded custody of his twin daughters. Wife was awarded custody of the youngest child, also a daughter. Husband was ordered to pay $150 per month to support his youngest child, but wife was not ordered to pay any money in support of the older twin daughters.
On 2 August 1983, wife filed a motion for contempt, alleging that husband was in arrears on his child support obligations. Husband responded by filing a petition for modification in which he sought to cancel altogether his obligation to support the youngest daughter. Following a hearing on both motions, the trial court found husband in contempt because of his failure to pay the $650 in accrued child support. The court also granted in part husband’s petition for modification by reducing his monthly support obligations to $135 per month. This appeal by husband ensued.
In order to obtain a modification of child support obligations, the party seeking modification must demonstrate that there has been a substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the order awarding support. Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Decisions on the issue of modification of child support rest in the sound discretion of the trial court, and such decisions will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Diaco v. Diaco, 363 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). We find no abuse of discretion in the instant case.
The only basis which husband had for seeking modification was that he could not afford to provide the twins with the standard of living to which they had become accustomed if he was obligated to support his youngest daughter. We believe it is unrealistic for husband to think that two households can be maintained as cheaply as one. Given a fixed number of dollars coming to the former spouses, there almost has to be some reduction in the standard of living formerly enjoyed by the family.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gurene v. Gurene, 575 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ssue two. We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that the loss of income incurred by the father constituted a substantial change in circumstances which justified an adjustment of child support. Andrews v. Andrews, 448 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, provides for the entry of income deduction orders in cases involving modification of child support. In pertinent part, the statute provides, “The income deduction order is effective immediate…
Authorities Cited
- Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Diaco v. Diaco, 363 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)