MILDRED BANKS, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MILDRED GRAHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE N. GRAHAM, 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 court held that the wife established a prima facie case for increased child support, and the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition without making an award.
The former wife petitioned to modify child support provisions of a 1963 divorce decree, seeking an increase from $50 per month for two minor children.…
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 Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, former wife of defendant, brought a petition for modification of the child support provisions of their 1963 divorce decree. Plaintiff was awarded a total of $50.00 per month child support for their two minor children by the final decree in 1963. After a hearing the judge dismissed the petition for modification because of insufficient evidence. The plaintiff wife has appealed.
The record shows the father was earning $509 per month as salary from the City of Miami at the time of the award of $50 per month for support of the two minors in 1963. The children are two boys who were 16 and 13 at the time of the hearing on the petition. The father has received cost of living increases periodically since 1963 and was receiving approximately $980 per month salary or a total of $11,327.51 as salary from the City at the time of the final hearing on the petition. He was also receiving a Veteran’s pension of $60 per month at the time of the final hearing.
*865The record shows the husband’s ability to contribute support for the maintenance of his minor children has increased substantially since 1963. There was also evidence that the childrens’ need for additional support and maintenance had increased during the seven years from the time of the final decree. There was evidence of certain obligations on the part of the husband and certain assets and obligations on the part of the wife.
We hold, however, that plaintiff did establish a prima facie case and the trial court abused its discretion in not making some award which increased the child support payments from defendant to the plaintiff. See Stanley v. Stanley, 158 Fla. 402, 28 So.2d 694 (1947); Sirkin v. Sirkin, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 13; and Cherney v. Cherney, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 914.
The order dismissing the petition for modification is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…rsuaded that the appellant met this burden on the issue of child support. Where the appellant establishes a prima facie case for an increase in child support, it is an abuse of discretion for the lower court not to make some award. Banks v. Graham, 252 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Likewise, where there is an increase in support payments, but that increase is not consonant with the established needs of the children, the trial judge abuses his discretion by not providing for an adequate amount. Luedke v. Beh…
-
Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…a $10.00 per week increase. It may well be that upon rehearing the record will support an increase of this small amount. However, this record does not, in our opinion, do so. See, Hendry v. Hendry, 340 So. 2d 942 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Banks v. Graham, 252 So. 2d 864 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); and Nixon v. Nixon, 200 So. 2d 263 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). The other points relied upon by Appellant regarding the beginning date of the increased child support and the award of attorney fees are without merit. The trial judge has the…
-
Siegel v. Zimmerman, 319 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…e in circumstances both as to the financial ability of the father and the increased needs of the children. Thus, the reasoning applied in Stanley v. Stanley, 1947, 158 Fla. 402, 28 So. 2d 694, and used by this Court in Banks v. Graham, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 864, is met. This conclusion does not, standing alone, constitute a basis for reversal because it is firmly established that in ruling upon a motion to increase child support, the trial judge will not be reversed unless the appellate court reaches the c…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Throwbridge Hull Stanley v. Stanley, 158 Fla. 402 (Fla. 1947)
- Cherney v. Cherney, 146 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Robinson v. State, 204 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Sirkin v. Sirkin, 204 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)