MARIANNE S. FRIEDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
LAURENCE FRIEDMAN, 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.
Wife appealed a modification of child support order, challenging both the amount of the increase ($75/month vs. requested $277.31/month) and the effective date (order date vs. petition filing date). The court affirmed the discretionary award amount but reversed on the effective date issue, holding that child support modifications should be effective from the petition filing date when need is demonstrated.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the amount of child support awarded and that decision is affirmed. However, the effective date of the modification should have been the petition filing date (November 27, 1973) rather than the order date (March 20, 1974), when the children's need for additional support was demonstrated to exist at the time of filing.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in determining the amount awarded for child support.
[2] A trial court's determination of child support amounts will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
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“The trial judge has broad discretion in determining the amount awarded for child support.”
Establishes the standard of review for child support awards and explains why the amount awarded is not disturbed 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 had a final judgment of dissolution in October 1972. The wife filed a petition for modification of child support on November 27, 1973, bas…
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 Petition For Modification Of Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the wife who petitioned for modification of child support in which she requested a substantial increase in such support based on the father’s substantial increase in ability to pay since entry of the final judgment of dissolution in October 1972. The wife contends that the court abused its discretion in only allowing $75.00 a month additional support money for the children when an additional $277.31 per month was needed. Wife also contends that it was error for the court to grant the modification as of the date of the order on March 20, 1974, rather than the date the petition was filed, November 27, 1973, in view of the fact that the wife demonstrated that the need for the additional support money was present at the time of the petition for modification.
The trial judge has broad discretion in determining the amount awarded for child support. Careful examination of the record does not disclose that the trial judge abused such discretion. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court as to the amount awarded for child support will not be disturbed and is hereby affirmed.
We find merit in the wife’s contention that the effective date of the modification by way of.an increase in the allowance of child support should have been as of the date of the filing of the petition for modification' rather than the date of the court order. The general rule is, as it should be, that the effective date of a modification of child support is the date of the filing of the petition where it appears that the needs of the children existed as of that date. Meltzer v. Meltzer, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 470. Increasing use of discovery procedures, as well as the increased numbers of domestic cases filed in the various circuit courts of this State, in some instances, of necessity, extend the time between the filing of the petition for modification and the date of the order thereon. The deserving parties to a modification of child support should not suffer because of any delay of hearing and entry of order thereon. Therefore, in the case sub judice, the increase in child support should have been as of the date of the filing of the petition for modification and the judgment thereon is to be modified accordingly.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…959). We do agree with the appellant that the increase in the child support payments [*1266] should have been made retroactive as of the date the petition for modification was filed rather than the date of the Master’s report. Friedman v. Friedman, 307 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), Meltzer v. Meltzer, supra, 262 So. 2d at 472. This cause is remanded to the lower court to fix a more adequate amount of support for the children, as it may determine. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with direct…
-
Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 384 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ial ability and the increased needs of the minor children. We further direct that the additional child support awarded by the trial court be awarded [*937] retroactive to the date the wife’s petition for modification was filed. Friedman v. Friedman, 307 So. 2d 926 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). We vacate that part of the trial court’s order requiring the minor children to submit to psychiatric counseling and evaluation. In all other respects, the order appealed from i…
-
Pelton v. Pelton, 617 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…retroactivity was required under these circumstances, so long as the increased need, as of the earlier date, was alleged. See Bloom v. Bloom, 503 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Keel v. Keel, 597 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Friedman v. Friedman, 307 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Apparently, the trial court rescinded its retroactive application of the modified child support award, based on the belief either that it was required to do so or that the former Wife’s motion for modification contained no reque…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)