RITA G. LAZAR, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN LAZAR, 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.
A foreign decree established in Florida is enforceable under Florida law, and modification requires a substantial change in circumstances.
Appellant-wife appeals the modification of alimony and child support provisions of an Ohio decree, which had been established in Florida. The trial co…
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 Substantial Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
McNULTY, Chief Judge.
Appellant-wife appeals the modification of alimony and child support provisions of an Ohio decree. We reverse.
To begin with, we point out that the Ohio court reserved jurisdiction to modify the foregoing decree. This being the case, its provisions are entitled to enforcement by comity, rather than by full faith and credit, as long as the decree is established in Florida as a Florida decree.1 This was done here.
But a foreign decree so established in this state is enforceable pursuant to Florida law as though it were a Florida decree.2 Here, the trial court modified the alimony and support provisions when the record clearly reflects that there was no substantial change of circumstances. This is contra to Florida law.3
Although the terms of the Ohio decree are arguably burdensome, they are no more so than if they were originally entered in a Florida decree with which the Ohio decree is now in parity; and if originally decreed in Florida the proper vehicle for relief would have been direct appeal, not modification in the absence of substantial change of circumstances.4
In view whereof, the order appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur. . See Sackler v. Sackler (Fla.1950), 47 So. 2d 292; West v. West (Fla.App.2d, 1974), 301 So. 2d 823.
. Id.
. See Rogers v. Rogers (Fla.App.2d, 1969), 229 So. 2d 618.
. Cf. Chastain v. Chastain (Fla.1954), 73 So. 2d 66.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Muss v. Muss, 390 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…zzell v. Bartley, 372 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1979). Neither Section 61.-14 nor the many Florida cases construing it differentiate between agreements executed in Florida and those from other states: Lopez v. Avery, 66 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1953); Lazar v. Lazar, 317 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Lang v. Lang, 252 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Thus, we have little doubt that the present agreement is subject to modification under Section 61.14 notwithstanding its foreign origin. Our attention is directed, however, to pa…
-
Serko v. Serko, 385 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…r to establishment of the judgment in Florida. The master’s report accepted and adopted by the trial court relies on two Florida cases as authorizing a departure from the Sackler rule. West v. West, 301 So. 2d 823 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Lazar v. Lazar, 317 So. 2d 854 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). We do not so interpret those cases. This Court in Courtney v. Warner, 290 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla.4th DCA 1974), reaffirmed that Sackler remains a viable precedent in conflicts cases in the following language: Unless the law of the…
Authorities Cited
- Chastain v. Chastain, 73 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1954)
- Jolly H. Rogers v. Rogers, 229 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- West v. West, 301 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)