STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES AND SUSAN MCGURL, APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS MCGURL, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a trial court's modification of child support below statutory guidelines where the father demonstrated substantial changed circumstances through reduced salary and increased living expenses.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in setting child support below statutory guidelines when the obligor demonstrates substantial changed circumstances including reduced income and increased necessary expenses.
[1] A trial court may deviate below statutory child support guidelines upon finding substantial changed circumstances, including reduced income and increased necessary living…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas McGurl petitioned to modify his child support obligation, alleging changed circumstances: his salary had decreased and his expenses had increas…
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 Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Susan McGurl have appealed from an order modifying Thomas McGurl’s child support obligation. They contend that the court abused its discretion in setting the father’s support payment below the amount provided in the guidelines, section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1991). We affirm.
This case evolves from a petition for modification of child support in which the court entered an order in February of 1992. In moving for modification Thomas McGurl alleged that he had suffered changed circumstances; his salary had decreased and his expenses had increased. In considering this matter it is apparent that the court gave due consideration to the needs of the children and the husband’s ability to pay. See Hillman v. Hillman, 567 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA1990). In the record are pay stubs from the husband’s employment at Wackenhut Corporation revealing, after deduction for taxes, insurance, social security, and child support, an average biweekly take home pay of $280.00. As demonstrated by his financial affidavit, Thomas McGurl was not living extravagantly on that amount. The court was justified in finding that the husband’s reduced salary, in combination with his increased living expenses, constituted a substantial change in circumstances. See Hale v. Hale, 567 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA1990). As in Short v. Short, 577 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA1991), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the husband’s support obligation below the guideline amount.
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., 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)…, 616 So. 2d 436, 438 (Fla.1993) (an increase in parental ability to pay of itself can be sufficient to warrant an increase in child support); Orr v. Orr, 621 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. McGurl, 614 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 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.…
-
White's Place, Inc. v. Glover, 975 F. Supp. 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1997)…ero days in jail. As annunciated by several Florida state courts, ordinance penalties may not exceed penalties imposed by the State for similar or identical offenses. See Wyche v. State, 619 So.2d 231, 237-38 (Fla.1993); State v. McGurl, 614 So.2d 648 (Fla.1993); Edwards v. State, 422 So.2d 84 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). In response, Defendants argue that these cases are inapplicable because there the ordinances’ punishments exceeded the maximum punishment found under state law, where…
Authorities Cited
- Hillman v. Hillman, 567 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Short v. Short, 577 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Hale v. Hale, 567 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)