CHARLES DAVID HALE, APPELLANT,
v.
DAISY ALICE HALE, N/K/A DAISY ALICE MCCLELLAN, 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.
The father appeals a trial court order increasing child support and awarding attorney's fees to the mother in a child custody modification case. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the mother failed to prove the substantial change in circumstances required to modify child support, and that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney's fees without evidence of the father's ability to pay or the mother's need for such fees.
The court held that the mother did not meet her burden of proving a substantial change in circumstances necessary to warrant modification of child support. The court further held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and costs because there was no evidence of the father's ability to pay or the mother's need for such relief.
[1] A substantial change in circumstances must be proven to warrant an increase in child support.
[2] A party seeking an increase in child support must present evidence of the child's increased needs.
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“a prerequisite for modification of child support is that the petitioner must prove that there has been a substantial change of circumstances”
Establishes the legal standard requiring proof of substantial change in circumstances as a necessary condition for modifying child support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles David Hale (father) sought to challenge an October 13, 1989 order granting Daisy Alice McClellan (mother) an increase in child support and att…
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 Need For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Charles David Hale (father) challenges the trial court’s order of October 13, 1989, which granted Daisy Alice McClellan (mother) an increase of child support and attorney’s fees and costs. We reverse because the mother did not meet her burden of establishing that there had been a substantial change in circumstances to warrant the increase in child support, nor was there any evidence presented regarding the mother’s need for attorney’s fees or the father’s ability to pay.
This court has held that a prerequisite for modification of child support is that the petitioner must prove that there has been a substantial change of circumstances. See Lacy v. Lacy, 413 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). While the trial court has discretion in deciding these matters, unless the petitioner meets this burden, the court abuses its discretion when it orders an increase. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
In the instant case, both parties failed to file a financial affidavit for this proceeding pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.611(a). Furthermore, the mother did not present any evidence as to the increased needs of the child, other than the fact that the cost of living had increased. She acknowledged that there had not been any change of circumstances that she knew of in the ability of the father to pay an increased amount.
The fact that the mother is no longer employed is not sufficient to show a substantial change in circumstances, because she was basically unemployed at the time of the final dissolution. Additionally, the mother testified that she had no plans to seek employment, but wanted to be a homemaker. Therefore, her unemploy ment status is voluntary. See Greene v. Greene, 547 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
We further hold that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the wife because there was no evidence presented regarding the ability of the father to pay and the need of the mother for the relief. See Hartzell v. Hartzell, 434 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
We reverse the award of child support and attorney’s fees and costs to the mother, but affirm all other provisions of the final order. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
LEHAN, J., and LUTEN, CLAIRE K., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landa v. Massie, 593 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ayment of that amount was to be retroactive to the January hearing date. This court has held that a prerequisite for modification of child support is that the petitioner prove that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. Hale v. Hale, 567 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), including the financial circumstances [*1147] of one or both parties. Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Brown v. Brown, 315 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). This change in circumstances must be significant, material…
-
State v. Davis, 616 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…of first impression in Florida. Clearly, if URESA was not involved in this case, the mother would be required to show a permanent substantial change in financial circumstances of the parties to support an increase in child support. See Hale v. Hale, 567 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In Koon, however, the supreme court concluded that a responding state court in a URE-SA proceeding may modify the amount of child support to conform to the current needs of the children and the current ability of the obligor to p…
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. (Uresa) v. Ledford, 621 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…. Crossdale, 585 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).1 Before awarding attorney’s fees under this section, the trial court generally must consider the need of the party seeking such fees and the ability of the other party to pay. See, e.g., Hale v. Hale, 567 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hartzell v. Hartzell, 434 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). However, as Ledford asserts, the Department has waived its right to raise this issue on appeal by failing properly to object below. The record reflects that throughout the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Lacy v. Lacy, 413 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Greene v. Greene, 547 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Hartzell v. Laurlene G. Hartzell, 434 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)