LINDA RIGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES A. LOWRANCE, 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.
Linda Riggs appealed the trial court's denial of her request to increase child support and attorney's fees against Charles Lowrance. The appellate court held that Riggs established a substantial change of circumstances through undisputed evidence of the father's increased income, and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying both the modification and attorney's fees request.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the modification of child support because the mother met her burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances through undisputed evidence of the father's increased income and assets, which is readily apparent when child support guidelines are applied. The trial court also erred in denying attorney's fees, and the matter must be remanded for reconsideration in light of the father's greater earnings and assets and the mother's recent loss of income.
[1] Child support obligations, even when fixed by agreement, may be increased upon a substantial change of circumstances.
[2] A substantial change of circumstances for child support modification can be demonstrated by an increase in the obligor's income and assets.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Even when child support has been fixed in this way, however, the amount may be increased based on a substantial change of circumstances.”
Establishes that settlement-fixed child support can be modified upon showing of substantial change in circumstances
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 settled their child support obligation in 1997 through a settlement agreement incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution. The fat…
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 Ability To Pay Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Linda Riggs, the mother, sought an increase in the child support obligation of Charles Lowrance, the father. In this appeal from the order denying modification, she argues, and we agree, that the trial court abused its discretion. We reverse.
The parties initially set the amount of child support by settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution in 1997. Even when child support has been fixed in this way, however, the amount may be increased based on a substantial change of circumstances. See State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Svcs. ex rel. Dodge v. Dodge, 647 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
The Mother argues that she met her burden by showing an increase in the Father’s income and by application of the child support guidelines. The Father concedes that his income has increased but contends that the trial court may take judicial notice of inflation. No request for judicial notice of this fact was presented to the trial court, nor was there any compliance with the procedures of the Florida Evidence Code relating to judicial notice. See §§ 90.201-.207, Fla. Stat. (1997).
Furthermore, this economic factor cuts both ways. See Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). In opinions discussing inflation in family law cases, the courts have referred to the negative impact inflation had on the buying power of the original support amount. See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 474 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (noting that “child support award has been seriously eroded by inflation”); Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (alimony); Forte v. Forte, 320 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (taking judicial notice of rise in cost of living but also noting expert testimony that was introduced on this subject).
We conclude that the Mother met her burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances based on the undisputed evidence that the Father’s income and assets had increased. The need for additional support is readily apparent when the child support guidelines are taken into consideration. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue.
The Mother also argues that the trial court erred in denying her request for attorney’s fees based on the disparate financial circumstances of the parties. One party’s need and the other party’s ability to pay are the primary but not exclusive factors in deciding a request for attorney’s fees in family law cases. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997). In light of the Father’s greater earnings and assets and the Mother’s recent loss of income, and in the apparent absence of any other Rosen factors, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the issue of attorney’s fees.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knapp v. Knapp, 778 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…court has jurisdiction to make orders as equity requires, with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child, decreasing, increasing, or confirming the amount of separate support. See Riggs v. Lowrance, 766 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(deciding mother had met her burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances based on the undisputed evidence that father’s income and assets had increased). We conclude that rather than denying modification the trial judge…
-
Paulette v. Rosella, 267 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…” 616 So. 2d 436, 438 (Fla. 1993); see, e.g., Knapp v. Knapp, 778 So. 2d 475, 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“An increase in the ability to pay may be sufficient to increase child support payments.” (citing Miller, 616 So. 2d at 438)); Riggs v. Lowrance, 766 So. 2d 1102, 1102–03 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing denial of request for increased child support due to the “undisputed evidence that Father’s income and assets had increased”); Sotnick v. Sotnick, 650 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“Modification [of child…
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Smith v. Ballard F. Smith, 474 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Forte v. Forte, 320 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State v. Dodge, 647 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)