DALE NECKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM A. NECKMAN, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the wife appealed the trial court's award of $1,000 per month in child support, arguing it was inadequate based on the husband's substantial reported income and net worth. The appellate court affirmed, finding no clear abuse of discretion given the trial court's credibility determinations regarding the husband's inflated financial statements.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the $1,000 monthly child support award plus supplemental provisions, finding the trial court properly evaluated the credibility of the husband's financial statements and determined they were inflated.
[1] An appellate court will be reluctant to disturb a trial court's child support award absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
[2] Child support awards are temporary and subject to revision upon a demonstration of changed circumstances.
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“the amount allowed by the trial court as child support is temporary in nature and subject to revision where changed circumstances are demonstrated, and therefore an appellate court will be reluctant to disturb a matter which lies peculiarly within the trial judge's jurisdiction, absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion”
Establishes the standard of review for child support awards on appeal and the deference given to trial court discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter fourteen years of marriage, Dale Neckman filed for dissolution. The trial court awarded her custody of three minor children with the husband rec…
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 Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
The wife, Dale Neckman, appellant herein, filed her complaint for dissolution of marriage after fourteen years of marriage to the appellee. Following a final evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered its final judgment finding the marriage irretrievably broken and dissolving the marital bonds.
The court awarded custody of the three minor children of the parties to the wife, with liberal visitation rights given to the husband. The wife also was awarded $250 per month as rehabilitative alimony for one year, and the husband was ordered to pay $1,000 per month as child support. In addition, the husband was ordered to pay all reasonable medical, dental and hospital bills incurred by his children; to pay the fees for his children’s summer camp; and to pay for the upkeep of two horses for use of the children. Lastly, the husband was required to maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy naming his children as the beneficiaries.
The wife’s sole point on appeal is that the provision of the final judgment for child support is inadequate. We disagree, and accordingly affirm the trial court.
It is well-settled that the amount allowed by the trial court as child support is temporary in nature and subject to revision where changed circumstances are demonstrated, and therefore an appellate court will be reluctant to disturb a matter which lies peculiarly within the trial judge’s jurisdiction, absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Waller v. Waller, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 352; Gregory v. Gregory, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 483; Meltzer v. Meltzer, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 470.
In the instant case, the wife relies on financial statements from the husband, the latest of which demonstrate that the husband’s net worth exceeded a million dollars and his yearly income was in excess of $100,000.
However, the husband testified that his financial picture was “illusionary,” and that he had taken an “optimistic approach” in completing financial statements in order to obtain credit from banks. The trial court concluded that 99% of the appellee’s financial statements indicate “puffing.”
In addition, there was evidence presented that the husband led a “rented” life-style. He rented the marital home for $700 a month, a boat for $900 per month, and a chauf feur-driven, • telephone-equipped Rolls-Royce for approximately $900 a month.
In our opinion, the evidence does not demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court in awarding $1,000 monthly as child support, plus other supplemental provisions for support of the children. See, Gregory v. Gregory, supra.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harland Morrison Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…scretion in its lump sum award. See also Winner v. Winner, 370 So. 2d 845, 847 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), and cases cited. We reach the same conclusion in approving the amounts provided for the support of the couple’s two children, e. g. Neekman v. Neckman, 298 So. 2d 534 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), and the visitation rights afforded the appellant in the final judgment. The restrictions on visitation, while very severe, were unfortunately justified by a view of the record concerning the relationship between the children and M…
Authorities Cited
- Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Richmond N. Waller v. Waller, 212 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Gregory v. Ledford Gerald Gregory, M.D., 208 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)