FREDERICK MERRILL BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET AMANDA BROWN, 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.
Frederick Brown appeals an order denying his petition to modify a final divorce judgment, seeking changes to visitation, alimony, child support, and property division. The Florida appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial judge and no substantial change in circumstances warranting modification.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the modification petition. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding visitation rights, and the trial court's decisions on alimony and child support were in satisfactory accord with the evidence and within the limits of judicial discretion. Other matters raised on appeal were deemed without merit.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in determining visitation rights, considering the children's welfare and best interests.
[2] A party challenging a child support or alimony ruling bears the burden of demonstrating 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“A party challenging a child support or alimony ruling has the burden of clearly showing that it represents an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review and the heavy burden placed on the appealing party in modification cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrederick Brown and Margaret Brown were divorced by final judgment. Brown subsequently petitioned for modification seeking: increased visitation privi…
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 Dissolution Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Frederick Merrill Brown, the husband, appeals an order of the trial court denying his petition for modification of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and other orders, seeking, inter alia, modification of visitation privileges, reduction in alimony and child support payments, reinstatement of the wife’s obligation to pay mortgage payments, taxes and insurance on the family home and to require the wife to return one-half of the furniture and fixtures from the family home and to pay one-half of the mortgage payments on jointly held property.
The trial judge has broad discretion in determining the father’s right to visitation, taking into consideration the children’s welfare and best interest under the circumstances. Escobar v. Escobar, Fla.App.1974, 300 So. 2d 702. We find no abuse of discretion in this regard.
A party challenging a child support or alimony ruling has the burden of clearly showing that it represents an abuse of discretion. Morse v. Morse, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 449. Since this is a matter within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge, an appellate court is not prone to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge unless it affirmatively appears that the trial judge abused his discretion. Meltzer v. Meltzer, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 470. A fundamental prerequisite to modification of alimony or child support payments is a showing of substantial change of circumstances, including financial circumstances, of one or both of the parties. See Chastain v. Chastain, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 66; § 61.14(1), Fla.Stat. We have examined and assessed the record and find the trial court’s decisions in this connection to be in satisfactory accord with the evidence and within the limits of its discretion.
The other matters raised on appeal are deemed to be without merit and will not be discussed.
For the reasons stated and upon authorities cited, the order on appeal is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The necessary prerequisite for the modification of alimony or child support payments is a showing of substantial change of circumstances, including financial circumstances, of one or both of the parties. Brown v. Brown, 315 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), Section 61.14 Florida Statutes (1975). We are persuaded that the appellant met this burden on the issue of child support. Where the appellant establishes a prima facie case for an increase in child support, it is an abuse of dis…
-
Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1997)…ayments is a showing of substantial change of circumstances. Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1954) (analysis in the context of alimony rather than child support); Deatherage v. Deatherage, 395 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Brown v. Brown, 315 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). However, under section 61.13(l)(a), a court that initially entered an order requiring a parent to pay child support has jurisdiction to modify the amount of that support under three circumstances: (1) when the modification is nec…
-
Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…h she receives from the husband. [*DCCCXLIV] An award of alimony may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances or financial ability of either the husband or the wife. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1977); Brown v. Brown, 315 So. 2d 15 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). To determine whether the trial judge was correct in finding a substantial change of circumstances in this case, it is necessary that we examine the circumstances existing at the time of the modified alimony award made in 1975 and…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1954)
- Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Escobar v. Escobar, 300 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Town OF Medley v. Caplan, 191 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Morse v. Morse, 191 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)