CAROL T. TSAVARIS, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS J. TSAVARIS, 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 affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that while interrogatories in modification proceedings may probe changes in either party's financial circumstances, interrogatories 8 and 9 were improper fishing expeditions and the trial judge erred in overruling objections to them.
Interrogatories in alimony modification proceedings may address changes in either party's financial circumstances, but interrogatories that constitute fishing expeditions must be disallowed.
[1] In a proceeding to modify alimony and child support, interrogatories may be directed to changes in either party's financial circumstances, but interrogatories constitutin…
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 intelligenceLouis and Carol Tsavaris were divorced in 1971 with Louis obligated to pay $1,425 monthly alimony and $500 monthly child support. In 1972, Louis filed…
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 And Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
Louis and Carol Tsavaris were divorced in 1971. By agreement, Louis was to pay Carol $1425 monthly alimony and $500 monthly in child support. In 1972 Louis Tsavaris filed a motion for modification of the final judgment alleging that there had been a change in his financial ability and requesting a decrease in alimony payments. He then filed numerous interrogatories requesting Carol Tsavaris to answer them. She objected to the answering of some six of the interrogatories, specifically Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The trial judge overruled her objections and she has interlocu-torily appealed.
Fla.Stat. § 61.14, F.S.A., permits either party to apply to the circuit court *594for a modification of the terms of the final judgment where the circumstances or financial ability of either party have changed. Therefore, Louis may file interrogatories relevant to such changes even though he may be relying upon changes in Carol’s circumstances or financial ability rather than his own. However, interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9 appear to us to be totally irrelevant and amount to a “fishing expedition” on the part of the petitioner. The trial judge erred in failing to sustain the objections at least as to these two interrogatories.
We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for action consistent with this opinion.
LILES and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
MANN, C. J., dissents.