WILLIAMS
v.
STATE
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.
Harold Lee Davis appeals a trial court order modifying child support upward by 150%, from $30 to $75 per week. The appellate court reverses the increase, finding that neither the father's current income nor the mother's increased need supported the modification under the applicable legal standard.
The appellate court reversed the child support increase, holding that the evidence did not support either an increased ability to pay by the father or a demonstrated greater need by the mother or child under the applicable legal standard for modification.
[1] A party seeking modification of child support bears the burden of demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances.
[2] A party seeking modification of child support must demonstrate a greater need for increased support.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Under the standard set by this court in Fox v. Haislett, 388 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), the order increasing child support was in error and we, therefore, reverse.”
Establishes the legal framework applied to determine whether the modification was warranted and the court's conclusion that the trial court erred.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe original child support obligation was established in a paternity judgment dated August 1, 1983, when the child was eleven months old. In October 1…
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 Appointment Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Harold Lee Davis, seeks review of the trial court’s order which granted appellee, Deby Ruth Odom, a modification of child support which resulted in a 150% increase in payments from $30 per *675week to $75 per week. The original requirement for child support payments was contained in a final judgment of paternity entered August 1, 1983, for a child who, at the time, was eleven months of age. On October 11, 1984, appellee petitioned for modification requesting an increase in payments.
The record indicates that appellee had lost $258 per month as a result of becoming employed at $414.09 per month. That, however, results in a net increase to appel-lee of $156.09 per month. While appellee also stated she lost certain other benefits as a result of becoming employed, she has not established that the ensuing difference results in a substantial change of circumstances.
At the same time, appellant’s income earned at the time of the modification hearing indicates he has suffered a decrease in income. While his employment as a painter results in surges of income, the evidence at the time of the modification hearing does not support his ability to pay more than originally ordered. Neither does the evidence carry appellee’s burden of demonstrating a greater need. Under the standard set by this court in Fox v. Haislett, 388 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), the order increasing child support was in error and we, therefore, reverse.
Appellant does not challenge that part of the modification order mandating medical insurance or a division of medical expenses relating to the child. That portion of the order is therefore affirmed.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.