SYLVIA MAZZULA, APPELLANT,
v.
VINCENT MAZZULA, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a post-judgment order reducing child support payments because the former husband failed to prove a change in financial circumstances required to modify the original support obligation.
A parent seeking modification of child support must prove a change in financial circumstances occurring after the final judgment, either in ability to provide or in the children's needs.
[1] Modification of child support requires proof of a material change in financial circumstances occurring after the final judgment, either in the obligor's ability to provid…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“In order for him to be entitled to a modification of this obligation for support, it is fundamental that he must prove a change in financial circumstances occurring subsequent to the final judgment, either in his ability to provide, or in the needs of the children.”
Establishing the legal standard for modification of child support obligations
A final judgment of divorce established the father's obligation to support his minor children. The father later petitioned to modify the support payme…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant brings for review a post judgment order which, among other things, reduced the amount of child support payments for which her former husband had been obligated under the final judgment of divorce.
The final judgment established the extent of the father’s obligation for support of his minor children. In order for him to be entitled to a modification of this obligation for support, it is fundamental that he must prove a change in financial circumstances occurring subsequent to the final judgment, either in his ability to provide, or in the needs of the children. Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 53; Chandler v. Chandler, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 697; Simmons v. Simmons, Fla. App.1966, 192 So.2d 325 and Cherney v. Cherney, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 914.
Appellee’s petition for modification of support payments did not allege, and the evidence in support thereof did not show, any change in financial circumstances oc*63curring subsequent to the final judgment, either in his ability to support the minor children or in the children’s needs.
We reverse that portion of the order appealed which modifies appellee’s obligation for child support payments as theretofore established by the final judgment. In all other respects the order is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
CROSS, J., dissents, with opinion.
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent as to that part of the opinion which sets forth that the evidence did not show a change in financial conditions occurring subsequent to entry of final judgment to support the order on appeal. Although the petition for modification of support payments did not allege sufficient facts, it nevertheless went unchallenged, and the change in circumstances subsequent to entry of final judgment was made and tried as an issue before the learned chancellor, and the evidence supports his order on appeal. I would affirm.
CROSS, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent as to that part of the opinion which sets forth that the evidence did not show a change in financial conditions occurring subsequent to entry of final judgment to support the order on appeal. Although the petition for modification of support payments did not allege sufficient facts, it nevertheless went unchallenged, and the change in circumstances subsequent to entry of final judgment was made and tried as an issue before the learned chancellor, and the evidence supports his order on appeal. I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Feder v. Feder, 291 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…Such a re-evaluation of awards made in a judgment of dissolution of marriage, after the judgment has become final, is not warranted (except for fraud or mistake). See Bailey v. Bailey, Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 531; Mazzula v. Mazzula, Fla.App.1971, 256 So. 2d 62. The right of the wife to payment of the determined arrears of alimony and child support is vested. Van Loon v. Van Loon, 132 Fla. 535, 182 So. 205, 208. While it was within the discretion of the court to refrain from holding the husband in contemp…
-
Frumkes v. Frumkes, 349 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…after the 1971 no-fault divorce act [Chapter 61, Florida Statutes (1975)]. Sections 61.13, 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975); Birge v. Simpson, 280 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Cheves v. Cheves, 269 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Mazzula v. Mazzula, 256 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Willis v. Willis, 254 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Bullard v. Bullard, 195 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). In the instant case, the trial court found no substantial change in circumstances and denied the petition for modificati…
Authorities Cited
- Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Cherney v. Cherney, 146 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 192 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Chandler v. Chandler, 226 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)