STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF SHAWN V. WARD, APPELLANT,
v.
WARREN A. SIMPSON, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1997-11-26
No. 97-1462
Joanos, J., Wolf, J., McCaulie, Associate Judge
701 So. 2d 1215 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1997) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

Florida appellate court reversed a downward modification of child support where the trial court granted reduction based solely on the former wife's tax dependent claim, which was neither alleged nor proven by the moving party and failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances.


Holding

A trial court cannot modify child support based on a reason neither alleged nor proven by the moving party, and the moving party must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to justify reduction.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court cannot grant child support modification based on grounds neither alleged nor proven by the moving party, and modification requires demonstration of substant…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“In order to justify a reduction in child support, the moving party must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances.”

Court stating the legal standard required for child support modification.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellee sought downward modification of child support based on inability to pay, but presented no documentary evidence of income reduction. The trial…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order of the trial court downwardly modifying appellee’s monthly child support obligation. Because the trial court’s sole reason for granting modification was insufficient to support the requested modification, we reverse.

In prior modification proceedings, appellee had requested a downward modification of his monthly child support obligation based on a reduction in his income since dissolution. The trial court had denied that request, finding that appellee had “failed to show sufficient proof of his income” to support modification on that basis. In these modification proceedings, appellee again requested a downward modification of his monthly child support obligation based on his continued inability to pay the current amount of support, but again failed to present any documentary evidence showing an actual reduction in his income. In these proceedings, however, the trial court granted appellee’s request for modification based solely on the former wife’s exercise of her right to claim the parties’ child as a dependent on her federal income tax returns, a reason for modification which was neither alleged nor proven by appellee. In addition, the former wife had been given this right in the final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. In order to justify a reduction in child support, the moving party must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances. See Pitts v. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278, 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Appellee failed to do this.

Accordingly, we reverse.

JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., and McCAULIE, Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Taylor v. State, 745 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
    …was convicted of kid- [*342] naping as charged in Count II of the Information filed against him by the State of Florida. He was originally sentenced to serve one hundred thirty four (134) years in the State prison for this crime. In Taylor v. State, 701 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), this Court reversed that sentence because the crime had been committed after October 1, 1983, and the trial court was therefore limited in sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment or a term of imprisonment not exceeding fort…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw