NAN R. YOUNG, APPELLANT,
v.
GORDON C. YOUNG, 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 modification of spousal support because the trial court failed to find a substantial change in circumstances, which is required to modify a prior support judgment.
A trial court cannot modify spousal support provisions without demonstrating a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties, including either the payor's ability to pay or the payee's needs.
[1] A substantial change in the circumstances of the parties is a fundamental prerequisite to modification of spousal support, requiring demonstration of either changed abili…
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 intelligenceThe husband sought to modify spousal support provisions from a 1966 New York final judgment. The trial court granted the modification in the husband's…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the wife, respondent below, from a final judgment entered in favor of the husband, petitioner below, wherein the trial court modified the support and maintenance provisions embodied in a 1966 New York final judgment. The evidence in the record fails to demonstrate a “substantial change m the circumstances of the parties” which is a fundamental prerequisite in a modification proceeding. Barsumian v. Barsumian, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 515. From the record it appears there was no substantial change in the petitioner’s ability to pay; on the contrary, the petitioner’s financial condition has improved when considering petitioner’s total income and assets. See Adams v. Adams, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 794; Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 346; Carmel v. Carmel, Fla.App.1973, 282 So. 2d 6; De Francisco v. De Francisco, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 780. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial change in the needs of the wife. See De Francisco v. De Francisco, supra; Carmel v. Carmel, supra. See also Firestone v. Firestone, Fla.1972, 263 So. 2d 223.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cont'l Assurance Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1986)…A 1975); Dobson v. Crews, 164 So. 2d 252 (Fla.1st DCA 1964), aff'd, 177 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1965). Such dicta is at most persuasive and cannot function as groundbreaking precedent. Improvement Commission, 60 So. 2d at 750; Town of Lantana v. Pelczynski, 290 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 4th DCA), aff'd, 303 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1974); Weisenberg v. Carlton, 233 So. 2d 659 (Fla. [*409] 2d DCA), cert. denied, 240 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1970); O’Sullivan v. City of Deerfield Beach, 232 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Shiflett, therefore, re…
-
Horton v. Unigard INS., 355 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…from the highest court in this State and that is no ordinary dictum! The rule seems to be that dictum in an opinion by the Supreme Court of Florida, while not binding as precedent, is persuasive because of its source. Town of Lantana v. Pelczynski, 290 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); O’Sullivan v. City of Deerfield, 232 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Weber v. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of West Palm Beach, 206 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Milligan v. State, 177 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); 8…
-
Vrasic v. Lome Leibel, 106 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…y is spent to project it.... Speech likewise is protected even though it is carried in a form that is ‘sold’ for profit.”) (citations omitted); ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F. 3d 915, 924 (6th Cir.2003) (same); Town of Lantana v. Pelczynski, 290 So. 2d 566, 569 (Fla. 4th DCA) (“Freedom from prior restraint upon speech and press extends to false, as well as true statements.”) (citing Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462, 27 S.Ct. 556, 51 L.Ed. 879 (1907)), aff'd, 303 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1974). “[A] fre…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1972)
- Carmel v. Carmel, 282 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Adams v. Adams, 273 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Valle v. State, 273 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Baird Russell Tewksbury, Jr. v. Tewksbury, 178 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Cooper v. State, 235 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Barsumian v. Barsumian, 235 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)