HAROLD GOLDBLATT, APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS GOLDBLATT, APPELLEE; DORIS GOLDBLATT, APPELLANT, V. HAROLD GOLDBLATT, 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.
In this consolidated appeal involving enforcement of a New Jersey divorce judgment, the Florida court upheld the trial court's order requiring the defendant-husband to pay accumulated support arrearages of $1,369 and continue weekly support payments of $57, while affirming the denial of attorney's fees.
The court held that the trial court properly enforced the New Jersey judgment and that substantial competent evidence supported the award of support arrearages and continuation of support payments. The court also affirmed the denial of attorney's fees because no testimony was introduced at the final hearing regarding attorney's fees.
[1] A foreign divorce judgment, including an incorporated support agreement, is enforceable in Florida.
[2] A party seeking modification of a foreign support judgment must present evidence of changed circumstances or financial inability to pay.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Alimony awards should not be reversed or revised unless they represent an abuse of discretion or are unsupported by material competent evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review for alimony and support awards on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced in New Jersey on February 23, 1971, with a support agreement of $57 per week incorporated into the Final Judgment of Divorce…
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 Changed Financial Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
These consolidated cases on appeal involve an action to establish the arrearage on support payments and the continuance thereof. The significant facts are as follows :
The parties were divorced in New Jersey on February 23, 1971. They entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff-husband agreed to make support payments of $57 per week to his wife, the defendant. This agreement was incorporated into t^ie Final Judgment of Divorce by reference/ Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to Dade County, Florida and without authority reduced the payments to $20 per week.
On March 23, 1972 plaintiff, Doris Gold-blatt, defendant-wife in the New Jersey divorce suit, filed a complaint in the lower court seeking to enforce the New Jersey divorce judgment in order to establish the arrearage on the support payments and the continuance of said payments. Defendant counterclaimed for a reduction in the support payments. At the onset of the trial, both parties stipulated to the introduction of a certified copy of the Final Judgment of Divorce and the attached Agreement. Further, both parties agreed upon the sum of $1,369 as the arrears on the support payments. The plaintiff prevailed and the court ordered the defendant to pay the ar-rearages and continue support payments of $57 per week. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees based upon the fact that no testimony was introduced at the final hearing on the subject of attorney’s fees. On appeal, the defendant contends that it was error for the trial court not to consider local law which would modify the foreign judgment pursuant to F.S. § 61.14 F.S.A.
The record clearly reflects that the defendant made no objection when a certified copy of the New Jersey Divorce Judgment and the Agreement attached thereto were introduced. Further, in his answer the defendant admitted the New Jersey judgment pleaded in the plaintiff’s complaint. In addition there was ample testimony showing that plaintiff has certain needs due to her medical condition and requirements. There was also testimony showing that the defendant failed to establish that his circumstances or his financial ability has changed since the execution of the New Jersey Divorce and Agreement so as to warrant a decrease in the amount of support. In fact, defendant’s own testimony revealed that he earned more in 1971 ($36,000) than in 1970 ($23,500).
Alimony awards should not be reversed or revised unless they represent an abuse of discretion or are unsupported by material competent evidence. Klein v. *36Klein, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 205. We hold that there was substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the chancellor.
Plaintiff in her appeal alleges it was error for the lower court to deny her motion for attorney’s fees. We find the chancellor correct in not allowing plaintiff-wife attorney’s fees based upon the fact that no testimony was introduced at the final hearing on the subject.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krogen v. Krogen, 320 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…judgment dissolving his marriage. We find no merit to any of his contentions relating to custody, lump sum alimony, awarding of country club membership, etc. Milander v. Milander, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 876; Goldblatt v. Goldblatt, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 34; Maroun v. Maroun, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 572; Ebaugh v. Ebaugh, Fla.App.1973, 282 So. 2d 14; Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App.1974, 289 So. 2d 463; Linares v. Linares, Fla.App. 1974, 292 So. 2d 63; Todd v. Todd, Fla.App.1975, 311 So. 2d 769. We do…
-
Demaso v. Demaso, 345 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…attorney’s fee award. No hearing was held or testimony adduced on the issue of attorney’s fees, thereby precluding James his right to contest Ellen’s claim to such fees. See Thoni v. Thoni, 179 So. 2d 420 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Goldblatt v. Goldblatt, 277 So. 2d 34 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Reek v. Reek, 303 So. 2d 677 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). The cause is remanded to the trial court for the taking of testimony on the issue of attorney’s fees. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.…
-
Reek v. Caroll Manelvia Reek, 303 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…examination of the transcript of testimony before the trial court, it appears there was no evidence introduced on the issue of attorneys’ fees. Therefore, the chancellor erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to the appellee. See Goldblatt v. Goldblatt, 277 So. 2d 34 (Fla.App. 1973); Cardillo v. Cardillo, 269 So. 2d 773 (Fla. App. 1972); Thoni v. Thoni, 179 So. 2d 420 (Fla.App.1965); Lyle v. Lyle, 167 So. 2d 256 (Fla.App.1964). Accordingly, the award of attorneys’ fees is reversed and the cause remanded for the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lily Klein v. Klein, 122 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)