GARY A. CONKLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
VALERIE A.H. CONKLIN, 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.
A father appealed the trial court's denial of his petition to modify child support obligations based on a claimed reduction in income. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the father failed to demonstrate a significant, involuntary, and permanent change in circumstances warranting modification, particularly given his limited job search efforts and prior income misrepresentation.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the modification petition. The husband failed to carry the heavy burden of proving a significant, involuntary, and permanent change in circumstances, as his limited job search efforts, acceptance of lower-paying work outside his field, and failure to pursue secondary employment or overtime demonstrated insufficient efforts to mitigate his income loss.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a petition for modification of child support when the petitioner has not made a reasonable effort to find employmen…
[2] A trier of fact is not bound by the conclusions or inferences drawn by witnesses and may give such testimony the weight it deems appropriate.
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“the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant had not carried the heavy burden of proof of showing a significant, involuntary, and permanent change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the agreement he entered into with his wife upon dissolution of their marriage”
Establishes the legal standard for modification—the husband must prove a significant, involuntary, and permanent change in circumstances, and the trial court's finding that he failed to do so was not an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband experienced a substantial decrease in income and sought modification of his child support obligations. The trial court found that the husb…
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 Good Faith Work Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of the husband’s petition for modification of child support payments. Although the evidence showed that the husband had a substantial and involuntary decrease in income, the trial court determined that the husband had not made a reasonable effort to find employment commensurate with his abilities, and he had not shown that his reduction in pay was permanent. See Leone v. Weed, 474 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). This is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court unless the trial court is shown to have abused its discretion. Brown v. Brown, 315 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
While the evidence may have been uncon-tradicted as to the factual .issues, the trier of fact is not bound by the conclusions or inferences drawn by the witnesses but may give such testimony the weight he thinks it deserves. Bergh v. Bergh, 160 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).
Thus, where the evidence showed that the appellant had made only a limited job search, had accepted a position out of the field in which he was trained at a substantially reduced salary, and had not obtained a secondary job or worked any overtime even though at the time of the dissolution he worked extensive overtime, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant had not carried the heavy burden of proof of showing a significant, involuntary, and permanent change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the agreement he entered into with his wife upon dissolution of their marriage. Leone at 404. In weighing the credibility of appellant and whether or not appellant had conducted a good faith job search to find employment equivalent to his former jobs, the trial court was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that when the separation agreement was entered into appellant had misrepresented his income to his wife by about fifty per cent and that even when his income was sufficient to meet his agreed child support obligations, he failed to do so.
GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
dissenting.
On the record before us, I believe the appellant is entitled to some reduction in the amount of child support payments he is making.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitts v. Richmond B. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…rranted due to changed circumstances which are substantive, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature. Manning v. Manning, 600 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Thomas v. Thomas, 589 So. 2d 944, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Conklin v. Conklin, 551 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The clean hands doctrine precludes a court from relieving a party of his or her support obligation, when the decrease in ability to pay resulted from the party’s voluntary acts, e.g., permitting a thriving business to be closed,…
-
Fenner v. Fenner, 599 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…st modified final judgment furnish an adequate basis to support the reduction in child support and alimony. See Haas v. Haas, 552 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); see also De Molina v. De Molina, 463 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Conklin v. Conklin, 551 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We find merit, however, in the husband’s argument on cross-appeal that the trial court erred when it failed to establish the date of filing of the petition for modification as the effective date of the modification of child sup…
-
Manning v. Manning, 600 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…e requirement that changed circumstances be permanent to justify a child support reduction is now settled Florida decisional law. See, e.g., Thomas v. Thomas, 589 So. 2d 944, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (on motion for clarification); Conklin v. Conklin, 551 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); O’Brien v. O’Brien, 407 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Bish v. Bish, 404 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). This Court in Bish stated that a permanent change of circumstances is a “fundamental prerequisite” to modification. See 40…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Brown, 315 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Leone v. Weed, 474 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Bergh v. Bergh, 160 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)