JEFF RUBMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SUZANNE HONIG, F/K/A SUZANNE RUBMAN, 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.
A party seeking modification of child support based on changed circumstances must show a change not contemplated at the time of the last order.
Following a modification of visitation, the father sought to lower child support based on the increased visitation. The trial court denied the petitio…
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 Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The parties dissolved their marriage in 1995, agreeing on child support and visitation. In 2000 the father sought a change in custody, asserting changed conditions related to the mother’s remarriage. As a result of mediation the parents signed a new agreement giving the father more visitation, but leaving child support unchanged. Ten days after the new agreement was adopted by the court, the father filed a petition to lower his child support, alleging as a change in circumstances his increased visitation. The trial court denied the petition and we affirm.
In order to obtain modification based on a change of circumstances, the change must be one “not contemplated at the time of the final judgment of dissolution.” Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla.1992). In this case, the change must be one which was not contemplated at the time of the modification order in 2000. Mastromonico v. Mastromonico, 685 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See also Form 12.905(b), Family Law Rules of Procedure, which requires the petitioner to explain the substantial change in circumstances which has occurred “since the final judg ment or most recent modification thereof.” The change alleged here, increased visitation, was contemplated at the time of the 2000 order, and therefore is not a ground for modification.
Although it is unnecessary, we would add that it is unseemly, to say the least, for the father to have talked the mother into increased visitation without a change in child support, and to then have sought decreased child support based on the increased visitation. His “silence when it is his duty to speak,” should estop him from “asserting a right which he otherwise would have had.” Taylor v. Kenco Chem., 465 So. 2d 581, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Affirmed.
FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. Est. OF Hartford E. Bealer, 890 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…when other estate papers were sent, including forms for the collection of life insurance. “[Her] ‘silence when it is [her] duty to speak,’ should estop [her] from ‘asserting a right which [s]he otherwise would have had:’ ” Rubman v. Hon- [*512] ig, 817 So. 2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (quoting Taylor, 465 So. 2d at 586). The evidence presented a prima facie case that notice was sent to Parker’s attorney who represented her in connection with all dealings with Bealer and his estate in Florida. Parker fai…
Authorities Cited
- Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1992)
- Taylor v. Kenco Chem. & MFG. Corp. & Emerald Mfg. Co., Inc., 465 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Mastromonico v. Mastromonico, 685 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)