CHARLES J. CHEVES, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA S. CHEVES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
The parties were divorced before our statutes1 were changed to provide that the wife’s ability to support children is to be taken into account in determining who is to support the children in what amount. Fla.Stat. § 61.14 (1971), F.S.A. provides for modification upon a showing of change in circumstances “of either party.” The trial judge properly allowed inquiry into changes in the wife’s circumstances, but improperly restricted inquiry into her wealth at the time of the divorce, at which time it was irrelevant, assuming the husband’s ability to support. A deterioration in the husband’s earnings is clearly shown and found as fact. Therefore the matter is open, and the outcome should be such “as equity requires, with due regard to the changed circumstances and the financial ability of the parties.” 2
The appellant has shown the requisite change in circumstances to warrant modification. Having thus opened the question, the wife’s circumstances become relevant.
Reversed and remanded.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frumkes v. Frumkes, 349 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…marriage dissolution decree whether entered before or 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 i…
-
Calhoun v. Calhoun, 292 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties since the date of the final judgment. See Bloemendaal v. Bloemendaal, 275 So. 2d 30 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1973); Sherman v. Sherman, 279 So. 2d 887 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); Cheves v. Cheves, 269 So. 2d 414 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1972); Livenston v. Livenston, 233 So. 2d 841 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1970); Rogers v. Rogers, 229 So. 2d 618 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1969). A review of the record discloses no such change. As a matter of fact the husband’s income has steadily increased…