BETTY JO DIXON, FORMERLY BETTY JO MOODY, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD WILSON MOODY, 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.
Trial court properly admitted evidence of appellant's assets in a child support modification proceeding and did not abuse its discretion in increasing the support award.
A trial judge may properly consider evidence of any and all assets owned by either party, regardless of source, when determining or modifying child support awards.
[1] In a child support modification proceeding, trial courts may admit and consider evidence of all assets owned by either party, regardless of source, and may consider the n…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought an increase in child support payments in a modification proceeding following a prior dissolution judgment that had awarded her proper…
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 Child Support Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
No recitation of facts is necessary to resolve the two issues presented by this appeal nor to announce or clarify (if such be necessary) the controlling law.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence, over her objection, in a proceeding by her seeking an increase in child support payments awarded by a prior final judgment in a dissolution proceeding, as to the value of property awarded to her by that final judgment pursuant to a pre-judgment stipulation of the parties. We hold that it was and is properly within the discretion of a trial judge, when considering an award of child support or a modification thereof, to allow evidence of, and to consider, any and all assets owned by either or both parties, regardless of the source of those assets. The source from which the possessing party obtained a particular asset, and the nature of the asset (viz: whether fixed or liquid) are factors which may be considered by the trial court, and it is not error to admit evidence of the existence and possession of the asset. (For a somewhat similar holding see Birge v. Simpson, 280 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st. DCA 1973)).
Appellant next urges that the trial court erred in the amount by which the child support was increased. Although the increase in award was, in our view, conservative, we cannot.hold, giving the order of the trial court the presumption of correctness required by law, that he abused his discretion and thereby erred.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.