FRANCES MELTZER, APPELLANT,
v.
CURTIS MELTZER, 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.
Frances Meltzer appealed a trial court's modification of her divorce decree, challenging the denial of increased alimony, the amount of increased child support, and the effective date of the increase. The appellate court affirmed the discretionary decisions on alimony and child support amounts but reversed the effective date, requiring it to be retroactive to the filing date rather than a later date.
The court affirmed the trial judge's discretionary decisions regarding the amount of alimony and child support increases but reversed the effective date provision, holding that the increase should be effective as of July 16, 1970 when the petition was filed.
[1] A party challenging a child support or alimony ruling bears the burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion.
[2] Appellate courts generally defer to a trial judge's discretion in child support and alimony matters unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.
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“A party who challenges a child support or alimony ruling has the burden of clearly showing it represents an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the legal standard of review—appellant must show abuse of discretion, not merely that the trial court's decision was wrong.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrances Meltzer was divorced from Curtis Meltzer in 1968 and awarded $500 monthly child support, $5,000 lump sum alimony, and $500 monthly alimony. In…
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 Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Frances Meltzer was granted a divorce from her husband, the appellee, Curtis Meltzer in Dade County, Florida, in 1968 and was awarded $500.00 per month for support of their two minor children, $5,000.00 lump sum alimony and $500.00 per month additional alimony. A related case was Meltzer v. Meltzer, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 751.
On July 16, 1970, appellant petitioned the circuit court to modify the final judgment of divorce by granting her an increase in alimony and support for the two children. Upon hearing of the testimony and argument of counsel, the trial judge ordered that the petition for increase in alimony be denied. The petition for increase in support for the minor children was granted. It was ordered that the amount be increased in the sum of $250.00 per month, making a total sum of $750.00 per month for support of the children. The effective date for the increase was set by the court to begin June 1, 1971.
Appellant contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by failing to order a greater amount of increase for the support of the children and for their medical and dental care. She also contends that the effective date of the increase should have been July 16, 1970, the date on which the petition was filed, rather than June 1, 1971. Her further contention is that the court erred in denying her petition for an increase in alimony.
A party who challenges a child support or alimony ruling has the burden of clearly showing it represents an abuse of discretion. Gilbert v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 379; Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 137, 138, 2 A.L.R. 3d 592. Such ruling being within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge, an appellate court is not prone to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge, unless it affirmatively appears that the trial judge abused his discretion. Gilbert v. Gilbert, supra; Cherney v. Cherney, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 914; Waller v. Waller, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 352, 353.
The financial needs of the appellant and the children were thoroughly presented to the trial judge at the hearing on the petition. The ability of Dr. Meltzer to pay any reasonable sum for alimony and child support was never in question. He admits earning $63,000.00 from his medical practice and his other income from investments.
The evidence shows the extent of the wife and two children’s needs. The evidence also shows the husband’s ability to pay and meet those needs which form the basis for the higher award of alimony and child support. We cannot say that *472the judge abused his judicial discretion in ruling on the question of the amount of alimony and child support awarded.
As to the effective date of the order increasing the child support, we think the court erred in not determining the effective date to be the one upon which the petition was filed, i. e., July 16, 1970. The evidence is clear that the needs of the children existed as of the date of the filing of the petition, and the children should not be penalized for the delay occasioned by the court proceedings.
The order appealed is affirmed in all respects except that portion that sets the effective date as June 1, 1971. That portion is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to make the increase in support to the children effective as of July 16, 1970.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…BOYD, JOSEPH A., Jr., Associate Judge. The parties to this appeal were divorced in 1968. Disputed questions of alimony and child support have been previously resolved on appeal. See Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), Meltzer v. Meltzer, 221 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). In 1974 the appellant Frances Meltzer again petitioned the circuit court to modify the alimony and child support payments made by her former husband. She had been receiving…1 / 3
-
Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 384 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ren. We further direct that the additional child support awarded by the trial court be awarded [*937] retroactive to the date the wife’s petition for modification was filed. Friedman v. Friedman, 307 So. 2d 926 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). We vacate that part of the trial court’s order requiring the minor children to submit to psychiatric counseling and evaluation. In all other respects, the order appealed from is affirmed. Reversed in part; affirmed in part. . Si…
-
Brown v. Brown, 315 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…in the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge, an appellate court is not prone to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge unless it affirmatively appears that the trial judge abused his discretion. Meltzer v. Meltzer, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 470. A fundamental prerequisite to modification of alimony or child support payments is a showing of substantial change of circumstances, including financial circumstances, of one or both of the parties. See Chastain v. Chastain, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 66;…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burton Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 127 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Cherney v. Cherney, 146 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Gilbert v. Gilbert, 105 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Richmond N. Waller v. Waller, 212 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Meltzer v. Curtiss Meltzer, 221 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)