KRISTOPHER DARWIN ROBINSON, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
SABRINA KAY ROBINSON, FORMER WIFE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in altering the agreed child support obligation and erred by ordering payments through the State Disbursement Unit. The court affirmed other aspects of the judgment.
Following a divorce, the husband sought to modify alimony and child support due to a decrease in income. The trial court reduced child support but den…
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
Kristopher and Sabrina Robinson ended their marriage in 2014. The consent final judgment of dissolution established a parenting plan, provided for certain cost sharing, and required Kristopher Robinson to pay alimony and child support. Sometime later, Kristopher Robinson changed jobs and suffered a resulting decrease- in income. He then moved for a modification, seeking to eliminate the alimony and reduce his child-support obligations.
The trial court denied the request to eliminate alimony, but it did order reduced child support. Kristopher Robinson appeals, contending (among other things) that the trial court should have eliminated alimony and should have reduced the child support even more. Sabrina Robinson cross appeals, contending (among other things) that the trial court should not have reduced the child support at all.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in altering the agreed child-support obligation. See Bish v. Bish, 404 So.2d 840, 840-41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (explaining that “[a] fundamental prerequisite to modification based upon change of circumstances is a showing that the change is sufficient, material, involuntary and permanent in nature” and noting that “heavier burden rested upon” the movant seeking a reduction when parties agreed upon original arrangement); see also Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So.2d 811, 813-14 (Fla. 1997). This conclusion moots Kristopher Robinson’s argument that the ¿mount of reduction was insufficient. We also conclude that the trial court erred by requiring child-support payments to be made- through the State Disbursement Unit—relief that neither party requested and that was contrary to the consent final judgment.
We have considered and rejected the parties’ remaining assertions of error.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. '
MAKAR, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ;, CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kristopher Darwin Robinson v. Robinson, 248 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…e dismissal order is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED . Lewis and Winsor, JJ., concur. Wetherell, J., concurs with opinion. See Robinson v. Robinson , 219 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (affirming post-dissolution order insofar as it denied former husband's motion to eliminate his alimony obligation, but reversing order insofar as it reduced his child support obligation); Robinson v. Robinson , 169 So. 3d 1168 (…
-
Kristopher Darwin Robinson v. Robinson (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), “an independent action was required under Florida law to set aside the [consent final judgment] for fraud upon the court because it had been more than a year since the [judgment] was entered.” 1 See Robinson v. Robinson, 219 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (affirming portion of the May 2016 order denying former husband's motion to modify his alimony and cost-sharing obligations, but reversing portion of the order that reduced his child support obligation); Robinson v. Robinson, 16…
Authorities Cited
- Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1997)
- Bish v. Bish, 404 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)