RICHARD L. JANE, APPELLANT,
v.
SHERLENE FERO F/K/A SHERLENE JANE, 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.
Former husband's appeal of denial to modify child support was affirmed because he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances as required by law.
A party seeking to modify child support must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances that is significant, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature.
[1] A substantial change in circumstances required for child support modification must be significant, material, involuntary, and permanent, with the burden on the party seek…
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 intelligenceRichard Jane sought to modify the child support provision of a final dissolution judgment incorporating a marital settlement agreement, alleging chang…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard Jane (“the former husband”) appeals the denial of his petition to modify the child support provision of the final judgment of dissolution which incorporated the parents’ marital settlement agreement. The former husband alleged in his petition that because of a change in circumstances, Sherlene Fero f/k/a Sherlene Jane (“the former wife”) should be required to pay child support in accord with the guidelines, to pay for addi tional medical insurance and to reimburse him $600 he paid for the child’s clothing. The trial court denied the petition finding no substantial change in circumstances. We affirm.
A fundamental prerequisite to modification of a parent’s child support obligation is the showing of a substantial change in circumstances. Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). This change in circumstances must be significant, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature, and the burden of establishing this change in circumstances is on the party seeking modification. Id. Because there was record support for the court’s finding that there had been no showing of an involuntary and substantial change in circumstances, the trial court correctly denied the motion for modification.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wayno v. Wayno, 756 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…approved settlement agreement mediated pursuant to the Florida Family Law Rules is entitled to the same kind of finality as settlement agreements incorporated in final judgments. See Davis v. Fisher, 391 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Jane v. Fero, 678 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996);Jones v. Jones, 674 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); McAlister. In my view, the rules suggest that mediation agreements, after being filed and particularly after being court-approved, are entitled to be treated as final determina…
-
Miller v. Miller (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)