CAROL ASRANI, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
AJIT ASRANI, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 former wife's petition to set aside the final judgment of dissolution and affirmed the modification of child support.
The former wife petitioned to set aside the final judgment of dissolution. The former husband received millions from a condemnation settlement, while …
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 Final Judgment Of Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order of the trial court which denied the former wife’s petition to set aside the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which approved the parties’ property settlement agreement and addendums. We do so on the authority of Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1987), and Micale v. Micale, 542 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
On the former husband’s cross appeal we also affirm. The evidence showed that the expenses for the wife and the child were approximately $2000 per month; however, the trial court modified the former husband’s obligation for child support upward to $2500 per month. The former husband had recently realized several millions of dollars1 due to a profitable condemnation settlement for certain real estate, formerly marital property. The former wife’s income has remained constant and her assets have not substantially appreciated since the final judgment.
The trial court has the duty and the authority to ensure that the best interests of the child are served. It is considered a substantial change in circumstances when the former husband’s net worth and income have increased so that he can bear to pay more for the support of his child. Alfrey v. Alfrey, 553 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The child is entitled to share the good fortune of both parents. Smith v. Smith, 474 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.1985). The former husband in this case has an income of approximately $12,000 per month, and we do not see any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ordering him to pay $2500 of that to support his child.
The order on appeal is affirmed and the order on cross appeal is, likewise, affirmed.
LETTS, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur. . The exact amount of the condemnation proceeds were not established at the time of hearing, but was to be between 3.1 million and 5.2 million dollars.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1993)…ve recognized that a substantial change in the paying parent’s income is itself sufficient to constitute a change in circumstances warranting an increase in child support without a demonstration of increased need. See, e.g., Asrani v. Asrani, [*438] 591 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA1991); Hosseini v. Hosseini, 564 So. 2d 548, 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Smith v. Smith, 474 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA1985), review denied, 486 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1986); Wanstall v. Wanstall, 427 So. 2d 353, 355 (Fla. 5th DCA1983);…
-
Garrison Dupont Lickle v. Dragana N. Lickle, 606 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ildren, let alone an amount in excess of their needs. Even under Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we hold that this is an abuse of discretion. We do not believe this conflicts with this court’s recent decision of Asrani v. Asrani, 591 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), as the facts of that case were different. We would caution the Bar that an analysis of the Canakaris discretion standard depends upon the particularized facts of each case. Thus, it is wrong to interpret these cases to create a…
-
Stemmer v. Stemmer, 995 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla.1993); Asrani v. Asrani, 591 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). GROSS, C.J., POLEN, J., and GOLDENBERG, RENEE, Associate Judge, 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
- Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987)
- Smith v. Ballard F. Smith, 474 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Alfrey v. Alfrey, 553 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Michaels v. DuBOSE, 542 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Micale v. Micale, 542 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)