ROBERT A. BENZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTINE M. BENZ, 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.
Robert Benz appealed from an order modifying child support and alimony in his divorce case. The Florida appellate court affirmed the increase in child support but reversed the increase and extension of rehabilitative alimony, finding insufficient evidence to support the modifications to alimony, and remanded for clarification of visitation rights.
The court affirmed the increase in child support as supported by competent evidence of changed circumstances, but reversed the increase and extension of rehabilitative alimony because Mrs. Benz's full-time employment and lack of evidence that she was precluded from pursuing education or career opportunities did not support the modification. The increased family needs were adequately covered by the increased child support alone.
[1] A trial court's determination regarding modification of alimony and child support will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.
[2] An increase in child support is permissible upon a showing of a substantial and material change in the circumstances of the parties.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The determination of the trial court regarding modification of alimony and child support will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly shown that the trial court abused its discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for modification of alimony and child support determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court modified the final judgment by increasing child support from $100 to $250 per child per month…
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
MILLS, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order modifying final judgment entered in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The major point on appeal is whether there was a sufficient change in the circumstances of the parties to justify the increase in child support from $100 to $250 per child per month, an increase in rehabilitative alimony from $200 to $450 a month, and an extension of rehabilitative alimony for one year. The determination of the trial court regarding modification of alimony and child support will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly shown that the trial court abused its discretion. Zammas v. Zammas, 328 So. 2d 519 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
The trial court’s finding that there has been a substantial and material change in circumstances between the parties since the entry of the final judgment is supported by competent evidence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in increasing the amount of child support from $100 to $250 per month per child; however, we do not believe that the increase and extension of rehabilitative alimony was supported by the evidence presented to the trial court. Since the entry of final judgment Mrs. Benz has become employed full time (nine months out of the year) as a teacher’s aide. She did not testify that she was precluded from obtaining any educational or other rehabilitative benefits because she had to work. She did not indicate that there were any career opportunities that she wished to pursue. The increased needs of the family, as indicated by Mrs. Benz’s financial affidavit, were fully covered by the increase in child support payments. We therefore find that there was no basis in the record for the extension and increase in rehabilitative alimony.
We find that the trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees to Mrs. Benz and that the amount awarded was reasonable. We do not find that the trial court erred either in refusing to consider Mr. Benz’s testimony concerning Mrs. Benz’s financial affidavit or in denying the motion to transfer. However, we believe that the trial court should have delineated Mr. Benz’s visitation rights with the children since both parties requested that this be done and it is not clear from the record before us that any agreement on this issue was reached.
' Therefore, this cause is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for entry of an order specifying Mr. Benz’s visitation rights with his children.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Singer v. Singer, 442 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…t’s determination that the wife’s financial position has 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.…
-
Wiedman v. Wiedman, 610 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…DCA 1977); Osman v. Osman, 280 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 289 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1973); Foster v. Foster, 537 S.W. 2d 833 (Mo.App.1976). See In re Marriage of Smith, 77 Ill.App.3d 858, 33 Ill.Dec. 332, 396 N.E. 2d 859 (1979). . Benz v. Benz, 355 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Norton v. Norton, 328 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).…
-
Wright v. Wright, 559 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…was substantial and competent evidence to support the trial court’s modification judgment, and whether the trial court breached the very broad discretion given to it in such matters. Peters v. Peters, 366 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Benz v. Benz, 355 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Gaddy v. Gaddy, 415 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). I submit there was adequate and abundant evidence to support the trial court’s determination, and it did not abuse its discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1…
Authorities Cited
- Zammas v. Zammas, 328 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)