WILLIAM J. NEALE, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCES E. NEALE, 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 affirmed the trial court's denial of modification of child support based on insufficient evidence of substantial income change, but reversed and remanded regarding the calculation of automobile payment arrearage and the determination of attorney's fees, which requires an evidentiary hearing.
A party seeking modification of child support must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances, which cannot be established by evidence showing no material change in income.
[1] A substantial change in circumstances is required to modify child support obligations, and evidence of deposit registers may support a finding that no such change has occ…
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 child support payments claiming substantial income reduction and also moved for contempt. The appellee presented evid…
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 Husband'S Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order entered upon 1) a petition for modification of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and 2) upon a motion for an order of contempt.
The appellee has not favored us with a brief to support the trial judge’s findings. However, our review of the record demonstrates to us that appellant’s contention that he was entitled to a modification of child support payments based upon a substantial reduction of income is without merit. The evidence adduced by appellee from appellant’s Deposit Registers furnishes support for the trial judge’s implicit finding that there was no substantial change in appellant’s circumstances warranting a modification.
Appellant’s second point has merit and the trial court should adjudicate the amount of the arrearage in automobile payments so that appellant will know the amount he is required to pay. Finally, because appellant did not agree that the question of attorney’s fees could be determined upon affidavits, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the wife’s need and husband’s ability to pay attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed in all respects except as to the amount of arrearage in automobile payments and the allowance of attorney’s fees and the cause is remanded with directions to adjudicate the amount of said arrearage and to hold an evidentiary hearing on appellee’s request for attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED, with directions.
MOORE, J., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.