EMMANUEL GEORGE ZAMMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
JILL BARRIE ZAMMAS, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitions for modification of alimony and child support.
[1] A court's order denying a petition for modification of alimony or child support will be affirmed on appeal absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.
[2] A party seeking modification of alimony or child support must demonstrate a change in circumstances since the entry of the original judgment.
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 intelligenceFollowing a divorce and property settlement, the husband sought to modify alimony due to the wife's increased earnings and inheritance. The wife sough…
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 Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By a judgment rendered in January of 1971, the parties were divorced. Approved therein was a property settlement agreement they had made, in which the parties had agreed upon an adjustment of their property rights, and, in the event of divorce, that the wife should have custody of the two children, then aged two and seven; that the husband would pay $200.00 per month child support, and alimony of $200.00 per month for six months after which the alimony would be at the rate of $125.00 per month. Included was a provision whereby the husband deeded his equal interest in the home property to the wife, to be held in trust for the benefit of the children.
Approximately four years thereafter the husband moved for modification of the judgment, seeking to have the alimony terminated or “substantially reduced”, alleging as changes of circumstances that the wife was gainfully employed and by inheritance had received a one third interest in a mortgage and $9,325.19. The wife also moved for modification, seeking an increase in the child support. On the hearing it was brought out that the wife’s earnings had increased from $6,848.45 per year to $8,378.75 per year, and that the value of her inheritance was $17,000.00. Also, it was shown that in the intervening period the husband’s income had progressed from $10,400.00 per year to approximately $13,000.00 per year.
The trial court entered an order denying both petitions for modification. On this appeal by the husband and cross assignments of err by the wife the parties claim error in the denial of their petitions for modification. On consideration thereof we are impelled to affirm the challenged order. The matters presented by the petitions for modification called for the exercise by the court of its sound judicial discretion, and the order entered by the court thereon should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of clear abuse of discretion, of which we find none has been made to appear. The order appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Singer v. Singer, 442 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…as undergone a substantial change. A trial court’s order regarding modification of alimony may not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Benz v. Benz, 355 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Zammas v. Zammas, 328 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the order below. Affirmed.…
-
LAU v. LAU, 407 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…nd ordered the husband to share the costs of medical and dental expenses, above those covered by insurance.3 There being substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s order modifying the amount of alimony, we affirm, Zammas v. Zammas, 328 So. 2d 519 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. [*929] The record clearly reflects that the allocation by the parties of the responsibility for the mortgage payments, taxes,…
-
Coleen Rook v. Rook, 469 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…to support their child. A child is entitled to share in the good fortunes and incomes of both of its parents. Ibanez v. Salazar, 459 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Wanstall v. Wanstall, 427 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Zammas v. Zammas, 328 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976). This is at least true where, as in this case, the needs of the child exceed the resources of its custodial parent. The fallacy of the contrary view could be demonstrated in this case if Coleen’s net income exceeded or equaled J…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence