MARCIA ROSENBERG NOW KNOWN AS MARCIA NATHANS, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH ROSENBERG, 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 former wife appeals a post-decree modification of child support that reduced monthly payments from $600 to $450 while requiring the ex-husband to deposit $75 per month per child in trust. The Florida appellate court affirmed the chancellor's discretion to modify based on changed circumstances but remanded to clarify the trust terms and appoint a trustee.
The court affirmed the chancellor's exercise of discretion to modify the support decree, finding sufficient change of circumstance to justify modification. However, the court reversed in part because the trust provision was too vague and indefinite, lacking designation of the banking institution, manner of withdrawal, specific purposes, and a named trustee.
“We have no record of the evidence and we find no difficulty in sustaining the chancellor's finding that under the condition revealed by the petition and the answer to the petition, there was such a change of condition as is contemplated by the holdings in Eisinger v. Eisinger, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 502, and Walden v. Walden, Fla. App.1959, 114 So. 2d 815.”
Establishes that the court found sufficient changed circumstances to support the modification of child support.
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 divorced in 1964 with a final decree requiring the father to pay $600 monthly in child support for two minor children. The mother remarrie…
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 Petition For Modification Of Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Marcia Nathans, is the former wife of the appellee, Kenneth Rosenberg. She has custody of two minor children of the marriage. The parties were divorced in 1964 upon the complaint of the wife. The support provision of the final decree, which was based upon a written agreement, provided that the appellee should pay a total of $600 a month as child support. The post decretal order which is here appealed modified the final decree by re*616quiring the appellee to pay $450.00 per month and further requiring the appellee to “deposit in a Miami banking institution, in trust, for the use and benefit of the two minor children the sum of $75.00 per month per child * * * ”
On this appeal the former wife urges that the chancellor abused his discretion by modifying the decree in this manner. We affirm the exercise of discretion upon the ground that no abuse has been shown, but we remand the cause with directions- to appoint a trustee and set forth the terms of the trust with greater particularity.
The situation giving rise to the order modifying the final decree was appellant’s remarriage. She had received title to the residence of the parties as a part of the property settlement agreement. The new family, which now includes the children of appellant and appellee, and one child of appellant and her new husband, occupies this residence. Appellee in his petition for modification alleged that the $600 a month support for his minor children was more than adequate, but he did not pray for a reduction in amount. He asked the court, “to require plaintiff to set up a trust fund on behalf of the two minor children and to deposit therein such sums as may not be necessary for the support and maintenance” of the children.
We have no record of the evidence and we find no difficulty in sustaining the chancellor’s finding that under the condition revealed by the petition and the answer to the petition, there was such a change of condition as is contemplated by the holdings in Eisinger v. Eisinger, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 502, and Walden v. Walden, Fla. App.1959, 114 So.2d 815.
Although not made a point on appeal, appellant argues that the order entered by the trial judge is vague and indefinite. We must agree. The petition for modification prayed that appellant be made the trustee. We think that the banking institution in which the money is to be deposited and the manner of withdrawal should be designated. In addition it will save the parties expense and possible future resort to the court if specific purposes of the trust and discretion for the use of the money are included in the order. See Johns v. Townsend, 160 Fla. 213, 34 So.2d 565 (1948).
Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johns v. Townsend, 160 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1948)
- Eisinger v. Eisinger, 95 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1957)
- Walden v. Walden, 114 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)