Adams v. Adams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adams v. Adams

247 So. 2d 334, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1971

DocketNo. O-122

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 So. 2d 334 (Adams v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Adams, 247 So. 2d 334, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a post-judgment order which modified the provisions of a final judgment of divorce by increasing the amount of child support required to be paid by appellee to appellant, but refusing to require appellee to increase the amount of alimony payable to appellant under the terms of the final judgment.

Appellant earnestly contends that she has demonstrated by competent evidence a material change in her circumstances, and the circumstances of her minor child, since the date of the final judgment. Her position is that the changed circumstances brought about by a substantial increase in the cost of living and the advancing age of her child are such that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her an increase in alimony and allowing only a $25.00 per month increase in child support.

The evidence on the question of need by the wife and child was in conflict and sharply disputed by appellee. A presumption of correctness clothes the judgment of a trial court when it reaches the appellate court for review. Considering the totality of the evidence contained in the record before us, we are unable to agree with appellant that the trial court’s disposition of appellant’s petition to modify the financial [335]*335requirements of the final judgment of divorce are so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of discretion.¹ The order of modification appealed herein is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a post-judgment order which modified the provisions of a final judgment of divorce by increasing the amount of child support required to be paid by appellee to appellant, but refusing to require appellee to increase the amount of alimony payable to appellant under the terms of the final judgment.

Appellant earnestly contends that she has demonstrated by competent evidence a material change in her circumstances, and the circumstances of her minor child, since the date of the final judgment. Her position is that the changed circumstances brought about by a substantial increase in the cost of living and the advancing age of her child are such that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her an increase in alimony and allowing only a $25.00 per month increase in child support.

The evidence on the question of need by the wife and child was in conflict and sharply disputed by appellee. A presumption of correctness clothes the judgment of a trial court when it reaches the appellate court for review. Considering the totality of the evidence contained in the record before us, we are unable to agree with appellant that the trial court’s disposition of appellant’s petition to modify the financial [335]*335requirements of the final judgment of divorce are so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of discretion.¹ The order of modification appealed herein is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 So. 2d 334, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-adams-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack