IRIS R. KRISCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH N. 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.
Trial court's modification of divorce judgment increasing alimony but denying increased child support and attorney's fees was affirmed because substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's discretionary determinations.
A trial court's discretionary decision to increase alimony but deny an increase in child support and attorney's fees will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court's discretionary determination regarding alimony and child support modifications will not be reversed on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion suppor…
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 modification of a divorce judgment to increase both alimony and child support payments, and requested allowance of attorney's fees an…
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 Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this interlocutory appeal from an order entered by the trial court modifying a divorce judgment by increasing the amount of her alimony, but denying her motion for an increase in child support and denying her application for allowance of attorney’s fees and costs.
Appellant, contends among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her an increase in child support payments and by failing to adequately increase the amount of her alimony payments.
In our opinion, the record reflects substantial competent evidence upon which the trial court could have properly denied appellant an increase in her child support payments and upon which it could have properly increased, by the amount which it did, her alimony payments. Reversal of those portions of the trial court’s order denying appellant an increase in child support and allowing her an increase in alimony would require our revaluation of the evidence and testimony, and the substitution of our judgment for that of the trial court. This we are not permitted to do. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); and Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976).
Appellant’s other points on appeal are without merit. Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge, dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)