BARBARA S. GRADY, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL GRADY, 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 modification of child support, finding it within the trial court's discretion.
The trial court reduced the father's child support obligation due to job loss and lower-paying new employment. The original award exceeded statutory g…
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 Voluntary Underemployment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Barbara Grady appeals an order modifying the final judgment of dissolution. The trial court reduced Michael Grady’s child support obligation because he had lost his longtime job and had accepted new employment at a lower salary. The original child support award in 1990 was not controlled by the statutory guidelines because the parents’ incomes exceeded the statutory range. The trial court set the new award on the basis of the guidelines in effect in January 1993 and the parents’ income at that time. It appears that the decision to modify the child support was also influenced by the father’s obligation to make sizable monthly payments on a child support arrearage resulting from his unemployment. The arrearage is scheduled for payment over a period of approximately two years.
We affirm the order modifying the final judgment as a decision within the trial court’s discretion. The trial court essentially concluded that the father was a mid-level manager who, in a difficult job market, had been unable to find employment equivalent to his previous job. There is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the father was not voluntarily underemployed. Thus, the trial court was not obligated to impute income to the father under these circumstances.
While affirming, we emphasize that the elimination of the payments on the child support arrearage and improvement in the father’s earnings could justify a future modification without a showing of increased need on the part of the mother and the couple’s children. See Bedell v. Bedell, 583 So. 2d 1005 (Fla.1991).
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlton v. Carlton, 670 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…odest tuition, that amount is still unreasonable as to them. On other domestic relation issues the courts have considered the spouses’ abilities to pay as a part of the reasonableness determination, e.g., in modifying child support, Grady v. Grady, 640 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); in determining alimony, McLean v. McLean, 652 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); in awarding private education expenses, Todesco v. Todesco, 583 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); and in determining attorney’s fees and costs, Margulies…
Authorities Cited
- Diane v. Bedell, 583 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1991)