JUDY A. NORWOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES A. NORWOOD, APPELLEE; CHARLES A. NORWOOD, APPELLANT, V. JUDY A. NORWOOD, 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 marriage dissolution appeal, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a trial court properly modified alimony and child support payments. The court held that rehabilitative alimony agreed to in a settlement cannot be reduced absent specific request, but child support may be modified based on changed circumstances regardless of prior agreement.
The court reversed the reduction in rehabilitative alimony because the husband did not seek such reduction and the payments were part of an entire settlement bargain that should not be modified. The court affirmed the reduction in child support because courts have inherent authority to modify child support based on changed circumstances and evidence, regardless of any prior agreement between the parties, and affirmed the denial of retroactive application of the reduction.
[1] A trial court errs in reducing rehabilitative alimony payments that were agreed to as part of an original settlement agreement when the payor did not seek such a reductio…
[2] A trial court has the inherent authority to modify child support payments, even if the parties previously agreed to a specific amount, provided the modification is reques…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Inherent in a court's authority is the authority to modify child support — regardless of any agreement between the parties so long as the modification is requested and supported by the evidence.”
Establishes that child support is always modifiable based on changed circumstances, overriding 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 were involved in a marriage dissolution case with an original settlement agreement that included rehabilitative alimony and child support …
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 Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order modifying a final judgment in a marriage dissolution case. The principal point on appeal involves the reduction of alimony and child support. Because the husband did not seek a reduction in the rehabilitative alimony payments, see Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957); Lentz v. Lentz, 414 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Wilkison v. Wilkison, 317 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and because those payments were agreed to as a part of the original settlement agreement which were part of an entire bargain, see Stebbins v. Stebbins, 435 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Muss v. Muss, 390 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Turner v. Turner, 383 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), petition den., 392 So. 2d 1381 (Fla.1980), the trial court erred in reducing them.
The wife also appeals the reduction in child support. Inherent in a court’s authority is the authority to modify child support — regardless of any agreement between the parties so long as the modification is requested and supported by the evidence. § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1983); Lewis v. Lewis, 450 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), review den., 451 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1984); Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) dismissed without opinion, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1981). The evidence here shows the husband’s ability to pay child support had diminished and he was deservant of a reduction. The wife urges the trial court could not legally find him guilty of contempt for failing to pay in the past and also find him unable to pay in the future. That is not an inconsistent nor is it an illogical finding. We affirm the reduction, just as we affirm the refusal of the judge to make the reduction retroactive, which retroactive application was sought by husband.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and CO-WART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Morley, 570 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ion upon a showing of changed circumstances. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Walker, 411 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Indeed, no contract or order can divest a court of its authority to modify child support. Norwood v. Norwood, 466 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Therefore, our holding is without prejudice to the parties to file a petition for modification of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of…
-
Guadine v. Guadine, 474 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…al agreement. Nor can any contract divest the courts of their authority to modify child support, for “[ijnherent in a court’s authority is the authority to modify child support — regardless of any agreement between the parties _” Norwood v. Norwood, 466 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see also Isaacs v. Deutsch, 80 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1955); Lang v. Lang, 252 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). [*1246] “It is also well-settled law ... that a master’s report is clothed with a presumption of correctness and should b…
-
Matthews v. Matthews, 677 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ent seeking reduction of permanent alimony. On cross-appeal, we affirm without discussion. The circuit court has “the authority to modify child support ... so long as the modification is requested and supported by ... evidence,” Norwood v. Norwood, 466 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), justifying modification. E.g., Guadine v. Guadine, 474 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); § 61.14(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). Even when a court of another jurisdiction has originally ordered child support, Florida courts have t…
Authorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Turner v. Evabel M. Turner, 383 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Lentz v. Lentz, 414 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Muss v. Muss, 390 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 450 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Barney v. State, 435 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Wilkison v. Wilkison, 317 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)