MELVIN B. FRUMKES, APPELLANT,
v.
NATALIE FRUMKES, 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 held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the husband's petition for modification of child support.
[1] A party seeking modification of child support established by a divorce decree must demonstrate a change in financial circumstances of either party or the children's needs…
[2] The rule requiring a showing of changed circumstances for child support modification applies to divorce decrees entered before or after the no-fault divorce act.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband, who had custody and sole support of the parties' minor children, sought to modify a 1966 divorce decree to require the wife to contribute…
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
HUBBART, Judge.
This is an appeal from a trial court order denying a petition for modification of child support filed by a husband in a divorce action. The husband [Melvyn Prumkes, the appellant] has custody and sole support of the parties’ minor children by virtue of a 1966 divorce decree which he now seeks to modify by requiring the wife [Natalie Frumkes, the appellee] to contribute some support for their children.
To be entitled to a modification of child support established by a divorce or marriage dissolution decree, it is incumbent upon the moving party to establish a change in financial circumstances occurring subsequent to the final judgment in the ability of either party to provide support, or in the children’s needs. The rule obtains as to any divorce or marriage dissolution decree whether entered before or after the 1971 no-fault divorce act [Chapter 61, Florida Statutes (1975)]. Sections 61.13, 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975); Birge v. Simpson, 280 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Cheves v. Cheves, 269 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Mazzula v. Mazzula, 256 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Willis v. Willis, 254 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Bullard v. Bullard, 195 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).
In the instant case, the trial court found no substantial change in circumstances and denied the petition for modification. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in so ruling. The financial situation of the husband has considerably improved, not deteriorated since the date of the divorce decree. The needs of the children have not substantially increased; indeed, one of the parties’ three minor children has reached majority and is no longer being supported by the husband. Finally, there has been no substantial change in the wife’s financial circumstances although she has remarried and with her new husband is operating a very marginal business. In sum, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in this matter as it is vested, and properly so, with a broad discretion to set child support payments and modify same in a divorce or marriage dissolution action.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Travieso v. Travieso, 447 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ward of attorney’s fees. There was substantial competent evidence of the increased needs of the child presented to support the order granting modification of child support. See Flynn v. Flynn, 433 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Frumkes v. Frumkes, 349 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We find no merit to Mr. Travieso’s contention that the trial court should have granted his petition for modification of custody. There is merit, however, to Mr. Tra-vieso’s contention that the trial court erred in awarding attor…
-
Evans v. Evans, 595 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…or support requires that he or she prove a substantial change of circumstances following the date of the prior judgment or order regarding custody or the parties’ ability to provide support or the needs of the children for same. Frumkes v. Frumkes, 349 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Accord Thomas v. Thomas, 589 So. 2d 944, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); League v. Lassiter, 536 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Alfrey v. Alfrey, 553 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (on rehearing). In applying the doctrine of res…
-
Martin v. Martin, 480 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…nt. Some of these expenses were the result of her opting to remarry and relocate in downtown Chicago. The trial court reached a fair and reasonable result, and accordingly I feel strongly the appealed order should be affirmed. . Frumkes v. Frumkes, 349 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). . The appellant’s financial affidavit established the cost at $547.19 per month. . None of these expenses were challenged by appellant. . This child had attended private school since kindergarten, with appellee’s knowledge an…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Birge v. Simpson, 280 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Whelpton v. Whelpton, 195 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Augustine Robert Vilaro v. State, 254 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Mazzula v. Mazzula, 256 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Cheves v. Cheves, 269 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)