ARLINE D. FILLMON, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD L. FILLMON, 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.
In this child support modification appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's order reducing child support payments from $25 to $20 per week per child. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order but without prejudice, citing the absence of testimony in the appellate record necessary to review the trial court's factual findings.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order reducing child support payments, but without prejudice, allowing the appellant to reapply to the trial court for reconsideration as provided in the trial court's March 18, 1968 order.
“The record in this case does not show the testimony taken before the trial judge which resulted in the $5.00 per week per child reduction in support money.”
Establishes the primary reason for the appellate court's inability to review the trial court's decision on the merits—the absence of hearing testimony in the appellate record.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was awarded a divorce with a property settlement and child support of $25 per week per child for two children. The appellee initially pe…
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 Petition For Modification Of Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from an interlocutory order granting ap-pellee’s petition for modification of child support.
The appellant was awarded a divorce from the appellee in which the property settlement as agreed upon and child support for the two children was awarded to appellant in the amount of $25.00 per week per child. On June 16, 1965, the appellee petitioned for a modification of child support payments, which petition was denied. Appellee again petitioned for a reduction of child support payments on February 2, 1968, and was successful in his petition by an order of the trial court dated March 18, 1968. The trial court reduced the support payments to $20.00 per week per child.
The record in this case does not show the testimony taken before the trial judge which resulted in the $5.00 per week per child reduction in support money. Therefore we cannot determine what was before the trial judge in the way of testimony, etc., upon which he based his order.
The appellant has in her appendix the deposition of the appellee taken the 21st day of February, 1968, which was before the second petition had been granted.
We note in the record that the order entered on the 18th day of March, 1968, provides:
“It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this cause be again set for hearing one (1) year from now for the purpose of re-evaluation by this Court of the circumstances of the parties and the entry of such further judgment as may seem reasonable and proper to this Court at that time.”
As we have before stated, due to the fact that no testimony was before us concerning the hearing which was taken when the reduction of payments was made, we affirm the lower court’s order without prejudice to apply to the trial court as set out in the March 18, 1968 order from which this appeal is taken.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ., concur.