EDWARD C. TIETIG, APPELLANT,
v.
COLLEEN H. BOGGS F/K/A COLLEEN H. TIETIG, 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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court decision that denied the former husband's motion to modify child support obligations and granted the former wife's motion to enforce child support arrearages with attorney's fees. The court held that when child support is based on a marital agreement, a higher burden of proof applies to modification requests.
The court affirmed the lower court decision on all grounds. When child support is based on a marital agreement incorporated into a final judgment, a heavier burden of proof applies to modification requests than in the absence of such an agreement. The former husband failed to demonstrate a substantial change in his financial circumstances warranting a downward modification. The award of attorney's fees for enforcement was proper.
[1] A party seeking to modify child support obligations previously agreed upon by the parties and incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution bears a heavier burden tha…
[2] A party seeking modification of child support must demonstrate a substantial change in financial circumstances to warrant a downward modification.
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“where, as here, the amount of child support is based on an agreement between the parties as incorporated into a final judgment of marriage dissolution, a heavier burden rests upon the party seeking a modification of such child support than would otherwise be required in the absence of such an agreement”
Establishes the heightened burden of proof standard for modifying child support based on marital agreements
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward C. Tietig and Colleen H. Boggs were formerly married. Their final judgment of marriage dissolution incorporated a property settlement agreement…
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 Enforcement Of Child Support Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the former husband Edward C. Tietig from a final order (a) confirming the report of a general master denying his motion to modify the child support obligations under the final judgment of marriage dissolution which incorporated a property settlement agreement between the parties, and (b) granting the former wife Colleen H. Boggs’ motion to enforce the said final judgment as to child support arrearages, and awarding her attorney’s fees. We affirm.
First, the general master did not, as urged, employ an erroneous burden of proof on the former husband’s motion to modify. To the contrary, the master followed the established law in this district [and the majority rule among the other districts] that where, as here, the amount of child support is based on an agreement between the parties as incorporated into a final judgment of marriage dissolution, a heavier burden rests upon the party seeking a modification of such child support than would otherwise be required in the absence of such an agreement. Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So. 2d 488, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Lacy v. Lacy, 413 So. 2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Bish v. Bish, 404 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So. 2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA), dismissed, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1981). Contra Bernstein v. Bernstein, 498 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Second, contrary to the former husband’s argument, the findings of the general master were based on substantial competent evidence. The former husband failed to show a substantial change in his financial circumstances to warrant a downward modification of his child support obligations; and the trial court properly enforced the child support obligations of the final judgment of marriage dissolution. See, e.g., Leone v. Weed, 474 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 370 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1979); Brown v. Brown, 315 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Scott v. Scott, 285 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
Third, no error is shown in the award of attorney’s fees. See, e.g., Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1205 (Fla.1980); Fuse v. Fuse, 533 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73, 74-75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tietig v. Boggs, 602 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1992)…GRIMES, Justice. We review Tietig v. Boggs, 578 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), because of its conflict with Bernstein v. Bernstein, 498 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. The marriage of the parties was dissolved by a judgment…
-
Landa v. Massie, 593 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…978), cert. denied, 370 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1979). Where, as here, the amount of child support is based upon an agreement by the parties, a heavier burden rests upon the party seeking a modification than would otherwise be required. See Tietig v. Boggs, 578 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In the instant case, the evidence demonstrated a support agreement had been entered into by the parties at the time of dissolution, and reinstated, by agreement, with the addition of $10 per month for medical expenses, upon Mass…
-
Malone v. Malone, 637 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ontempt. The trial court must consider the former husband’s equitable defenses and whether and how the court should exercise its contempt power. The court must also consider the former husband’s petition for modification. See, e.g., Tietig v. Boggs, 578 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), approved, 602 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1992). REVERSED and REMANDED. W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.…
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 (13 total)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Scott v. Scott, 285 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Bernstein v. Bernstein, 498 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Brown v. Brown, 315 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 399 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Leone v. Weed, 474 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Bish v. Bish, 404 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)