IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEANNE G. WAINWRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID LEE WAINWRIGHT, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the former wife's request to modify child support because she failed to present competent evidence of a substantial change in circumstances.
The former wife sought to increase child support, but presented no testimony or evidence at the hearing, only arguments from counsel. The trial court …
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 Substantial Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant (the former wife) seeks review of an order denying her request to modify the final judgment of dissolution of marriage by increasing the monthly child support obligation of appellee (the former husband). However, we are at a loss to comprehend how we are to determine whether the trial court committed error, because the record reflects that no testimony or other evidence was presented at the hearing before the trial court; nor was any stipulation, either oral or written, reached concerning the relevant facts. Instead, the attorneys representing the parties merely argued their respective positions regarding the facts and the applicable law.
As the moving party, the burden was on the former wife to establish by competent evidence that a substantial change in circumstances, entitling her to increased child support, had occurred since the entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Lamar v. Lamar, 266 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The former wife failed to carry this burden. Similarly, as the appellant, the burden is on the former wife to demonstrate, from the record, that the trial court committed error. In re Lieber’s Estate, 103 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1958). The former wife has failed to carry this burden, as well.
Because the former wife has failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied her request for increased child support, we are constrained to affirm. However, our decision is without prejudice to the former wife’s right again to seek an increase in the former husband’s child support obligation, based upon a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, SHIVERS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whight v. Tymme Douglas Whight, 635 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…A 1993). It is not enough for counsel simply to argue “their respective positions regarding the facts and the applicable law,” absent a stipulation or the taking of “testimony or [presentation of] other evidence” at hearing. Wainwight v. Wainwright, 610 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). [*139] The former Wife has raised another issue regarding retroactivity of a provision, to wit, whether on remand the trial court should make retroactive (to the filing date of counter-petition) an upward modification of child s…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. OF Max Lieber, 103 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1958)
- Lamar v. Lamar, 266 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)