MARTHA JANE ADAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
D. M. ADAMS, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order modifying the divorce decree, finding no abuse of discretion.
Appellant sought to increase child support and alimony based on changed circumstances. The trial court increased child support slightly but denied an …
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 Material Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a post-judgment order which modified the provisions of a final judgment of divorce by increasing the amount of child support required to be paid by appellee to appellant, but refusing to require appellee to increase the amount of alimony payable to appellant under the terms of the final judgment.
Appellant earnestly contends that she has demonstrated by competent evidence a material change in her circumstances, and the circumstances of her minor child, since the date of the final judgment. Her position is that the changed circumstances brought about by a substantial increase in the cost of living and the advancing age of her child are such that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her an increase in alimony and allowing only a $25.00 per month increase in child support.
The evidence on the question of need by the wife and child was in conflict and sharply disputed by appellee. A presumption of correctness clothes the judgment of a trial court when it reaches the appellate court for review. Considering the totality of the evidence contained in the record before us, we are unable to agree with appellant that the trial court’s disposition of appellant’s petition to modify the financial *335requirements of the final judgment of divorce are so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of discretion.1 The order of modification appealed herein is accordingly affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Witcher v. Petty, 534 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…Abby were unreasonable. An appellant seeking to alter an award of support at the appellate level must show a clear abuse of discretion. Simonet v. Simonet, 279 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 289 So. 2d 731 (Fla.1974); Adams v. Adams, 247 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). This court in Boylan v. Cooper, 482 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), suggested that the trial court could reject a patently inflated expense affidavit. Thus, even though a child is entitled to enjoy the mode of living that the pa…
Authorities Cited
- Ames v. Ames, 153 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Kirby v. Kirby, 111 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)