Axtell v. Abrams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Axtell v. Abrams

582 So. 2d 145, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6561, 1991 WL 120771

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1426

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 582 So. 2d 145 (Axtell v. Abrams) 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

Axtell v. Abrams, 582 So. 2d 145, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6561, 1991 WL 120771 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is brought from two orders, one denying a former wife’s motion for modification of a child-support order, and the other denying her motion for contempt based on an alleged failure of the former husband to deliver a life insurance policy on himself, naming the minor daughter as beneficiary.

We affirm the denial of the motion for modification of child-support payments as there is no showing of the required substantial change in the former husband’s meager financial circumstances or the child’s needs. Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So.2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Boylan v. Cooper, 482 So.2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The record does show that the mother’s circumstances have improved significantly with a $400,000 inheritance, and that the so-called “needs” of the minor are more in the nature of “wants” consistent with the luxurious lifestyle her mother has provided.¹

Although the matter of an insurance policy came before the court by brief testimony, the single issue before the court by motion and notice was for a modification of the support order. Expanding the scope of the hearing to address and determine matters not noticed for hearing would have violated the appellee’s due process rights. Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is brought from two orders, one denying a former wife’s motion for modification of a child-support order, and the other denying her motion for contempt based on an alleged failure of the former husband to deliver a life insurance policy on himself, naming the minor daughter as beneficiary.

We affirm the denial of the motion for modification of child-support payments as there is no showing of the required substantial change in the former husband’s meager financial circumstances or the child’s needs. Fritz v. Fritz, 485 So.2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Boylan v. Cooper, 482 So.2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The record does show that the mother’s circumstances have improved significantly with a $400,000 inheritance, and that the so-called “needs” of the minor are more in the nature of “wants” consistent with the luxurious lifestyle her mother has provided.¹

Although the matter of an insurance policy came before the court by brief testimony, the single issue before the court by motion and notice was for a modification of the support order. Expanding the scope of the hearing to address and determine matters not noticed for hearing would have violated the appellee’s due process rights. Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 So. 2d 145, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6561, 1991 WL 120771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/axtell-v-abrams-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack