JUDITH L. AXTELL, APPELLANT,
v.
NORMAN D. ABRAMS, 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 court affirmed the denial of the child support modification and the contempt motion.
A former wife sought to modify child support and hold the former husband in contempt for failing to provide a life insurance policy. The trial court d…
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 Motion To Modify Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is brought from two orders, one denying a former wife’s motion for modification of a child-support order, and the other denying her motion for contempt based on an alleged failure of the former husband to deliver a life insurance policy on himself, naming the minor daughter as beneficiary.
We affirm the denial of the motion for modification of child-support payments as there is no showing of the required substantial change in the former husband’s meager financial circumstances or the child’s needs. Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Boylan v. Cooper, 482 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The record does show that the mother’s circumstances have improved significantly with a $400,000 inheritance, and that the so-called “needs” of the minor are more in the nature of “wants” consistent with the luxurious lifestyle her mother has provided.1
Although the matter of an insurance policy came before the court by brief testimony, the single issue before the court by motion and notice was for a modification of the support order. Expanding the scope of the hearing to address and determine matters not noticed for hearing would have violated the appellee’s due process rights. Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Affirmed.
. At trial the mother testified that she needed about $1400 per month for the child’s support. Financial affidavits showed the needs as a $245 per month car payment; $216 for recreation; $400 for automobile maintenance, insurance and tags; and $100 for the child’s horse.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Couture Farms v. Triton Int'l, Inc., 682 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ial court heard unnoticed motions. Couture Farms appeals the denial of its Rule 1.070(i) motion to dismiss. Although a court may violate a party’s due process rights if it expands the scope of a hearing to matters not noticed, see Axtell v. Abrams, 582 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); [*579] Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake East Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 547 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), no violation occurred here. Here, the appellants fully participat…
Authorities Cited
- Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Boylan v. Cooper, 482 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Hicks v. State, 485 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Aleyda Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)