KENNETH N. KRISCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
IRIS R. KRISCHER, 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.
Kenneth Krischer appeals an order modifying his child support obligation from $225 to $350 per month. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the modification, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court and sufficient competent evidence to support the increased support amount.
The court affirmed the modification order, finding no abuse of discretion. The trial court had sufficient competent evidence to support the modification, and the hearing was properly noticed despite Kenneth's objections regarding the timing and procedure.
[1] A stipulation to forbear from seeking modification of child support until a specific event does not preclude a petition for modification filed before that event, if the p…
[2] A court may hear a petition for modification of child support on a date for which it was properly noticed, even if other motions related to the case are also scheduled fo…
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“There being sufficient competent evidence to support the modification order of the chancellor and this court not having the prerogative to substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor through re-evaluation of the evidence contained in the record on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor.”
Establishes the standard of review for child support modifications and the court's deferential posture toward trial court discretion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth and Iris Krischer were divorced on January 27, 1969, with Kenneth ordered to pay $225 monthly child support and $150 monthly alimony. On March…
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 Financial Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant, Kenneth Krischer, seeks reversal of an order modifying final judgment of divorce by increasing the amount of child support from $225 ($75 per child) per month to $350.
On January 27, 1969 Kenneth and Iris Krischer were divorced and pursuant to the final judgment Kenneth was ordered to pay $225 monthly as child support and $150 monthly as alimony. After several disputes over the amount of these payments, the parties on March 28, 1973 entered into a stipulation whereby Iris agreed to forbear from asking for modification of alimony or child support until Kenneth completed medical school in July 1975. However, in January 1975 Iris filed a petition for modification which was denied without prejudice until July. In July Iris filed the same petition which was noticed for hearing on Sep tember 11. Kenneth answered and requested the petition be denied, and custody of the children be awarded to him. On August 28 Iris filed motions for more definite statement (directed to the matter of child custody) and for temporary. counsel fees. These motions were also scheduled for hearing on September 11. On that date, over Kenneth’s objection on the grounds of improper notice, the chancellor heard the petition for modification. Without reading the depositions of the parties, the chancellor entered the appealed modification order based upon Iris’ unsworn financial affidavit. Kenneth objected on the grounds the financial affidavit was inaccurate and incomplete.
Kenneth first contends the chancellor erred in hearing the modification petition on September 11 when Iris subsequently filed motions for more definite statement and temporary attorney’s fees also noticed for hearing on the same date. The record reflects that the hearing on the modification petition for September 11 was properly noticed and served upon Kenneth. The chancellor being thoroughly familiar with the history of the case and fully aware of the financial condition of the parties, we conclude this point is lacking merit. Cf. Hagen v. Hagen, 308 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Kenneth secondly argues that the chancellor erred in modifying the amount of child support in that he considered Iris’ five month old and incomplete financial affidavit and did not permit Kenneth to testify as to his financial inability to pay the increased support.
There being sufficient competent evidence to support the modification order of the chancellor and this court not having the prerogative to substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor through re-evaluation of the evidence contained in the record on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meltzer v. Meltzer, 400 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…nakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1980); Krischer v. Krischer, 337 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Jelke v. Jelke, 233 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1970). We similarly reject the contention that the $45,000 award to the wife’s attorneys is excessive. As in Adams v. Adams, supra, “the figure…
-
Ellynn Josephs v. Josephs, 357 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…t of periodic alimony is excessive. We find no reversible error upon the amounts allowed as lump sum alimony and the periodic alimony. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); and Krischer v. Krischer, 337 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The trial judge as the trier of fact was not compelled to find a constructive trust for the wife’s benefit in all the funds which passed through the joint checking account. See the principle of law in Wilson v. Wilson, 279 So. 2d…
-
Roth v. Roth, 351 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Krischer v. Krischer, 337 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Simmons v. Simmons, 192 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla.3d DCA 1966).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Hagen v. Hagen, 308 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)