DONNA HAND, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN KUSHMER, 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.
In this child support modification appeal, the court reversed the trial court's downward modification of the father's child support obligation, holding that he failed to demonstrate the substantial change of circumstances required by law to reduce support payments established by a prior agreement.
The court held that Kushmer failed to show the substantial change of circumstances necessary to support downward modification. Because the child support was based on agreement between the parties, a heavier burden of proof was required, and the evidence showed Kushmer's financial situation had actually improved rather than deteriorated.
[1] A substantial change of circumstances, including financial circumstances, is a fundamental prerequisite to the modification of child support payments.
[2] The change in circumstances justifying child support modification must be significant, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A fundamental prerequisite to modification of child support payments is a showing of substantial change of circumstances, including financial circumstances of one or both of the parties. This change in circumstances must be significant, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature.”
Establishes the legal standard for child support modification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties divorced in 1983 with three children. The original judgment required Kushmer to pay $860/month in child support, reduced to $785/month by …
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 Downward Modification Of Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Donna Hand challenges the trial court’s downward modification of the child support obligation of Hand’s former husband, John Kushmer. Because the record fails to show a substantial change of circumstances to support the reduction in child support, we reverse.
The parties were divorced in 1983 and they have three children from the marriage. The final judgment of dissolution incorporated their property settlement agreement and required Kushmer to pay $860 a month in child support, divided equally among the three children. In 1987, the parties stipulated to a reduction in Kushmer’s child support obligation to $785 a month.
In September 1993, Kushmer petitioned for modification of the final judgment of dissolution. He alleged that he had suffered a substantial change of circumstances with a permanent, involuntary and unforeseeable reduction in his income. We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the proceedings before the hearing officer. Based on this review, we must conclude that Kushmer failed to offer sufficient proof to establish a change of circumstances justifying a downward modification. Kushmer testified that his net income in 1987 was $1000 a month. His accountant testified that his current income is approximately $1100 a month. But he also testified that Kushmer was taking draws from the checking account averaging over $2800 a month for the first seven months of 1994. Without objection from Kushmer, the hearing officer found that his income was $1200 a month. Based on these numbers, Kushmer’s financial situation has improved since the 1987 modification.
Modification of child support is governed by the following principles of law: A fundamental prerequisite to modification of child support payments is a showing of substantial change of circumstances, including financial circumstances of one or both of the parties. This change in circumstances must be significant, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature. The party seeking modification has the burden of showing this change in circumstances. And where, as here[,] the amount of child support is based upon an agreement by the parties, a heavier burden rests upon the party seeking a modification than would otherwise be required.
Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So. 2d 488, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (citations omitted) (quoting Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So. 2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)). The heavier burden applies only where the party seeks a downward modification, as in this case. See Tietig v. Boggs, 602 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1992).
Based on the record and transcript before us, we conclude that Kushmer faded to show the substantial change of circumstances necessary to support the downward modification. Accordingly, we reverse.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maher v. Anne C. Maher, 96 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ent in nature.’” (quoting Pimm v. Pimm 601 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla.1992)). When the original child support amount is based on an agreement by the parties, as here, there is a heavier burden on the party seeking a downward modification. Hand v. Kushmer, 673 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing [*1023] Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So. 2d 488, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and Tietig v. Boggs, 602 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1992)). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a greater modification than it allowed. The c…
-
Belcher v. Belcher, 691 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…pport. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), where, as here, the former husband has not met the burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances. Hand v. Kushmer, 673 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We also affirm, as modified, the assessment of child-support arrearages against the former husband. We reduce the arrearages amount charged in paragraph four to $10,426.07. The trial court improperly ordered the former husband to…
-
Amoroso v. Phister, 689 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…luding financial circumstances of one or both of the parties. This change ... [*1174] must be significant, material, involuntary, and permanent_ The party seeking modification has the burden of showing this change in circumstances.” Hand v. Kushmer, 673 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (quoting Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So. 2d 488, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)). The record in the instant ease is devoid of evidence to establish that any such substantial change occurred here. In fact, the former husband’s financial infor…
Authorities Cited
- Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Tietig v. Boggs, 602 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1992)
- Hicks v. State, 485 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Aleyda Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)