Davis v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davis v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

471 So. 2d 674, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1615, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14827

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2663

StatusPublished

This text of 471 So. 2d 674 (Davis v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services) 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

Davis v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 471 So. 2d 674, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1615, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14827 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Harold Lee Davis, seeks review of the trial court’s order which granted appellee, Deby Ruth Odom, a modification of child support which resulted in a 150% increase in payments from $30 per [675]*675week to $75 per week. The original requirement for child support payments was contained in a final judgment of paternity entered August 1, 1983, for a child who, at the time, was eleven months of age. On October 11, 1984, appellee petitioned for modification requesting an increase in payments.

The record indicates that appellee had lost $258 per month as a result of becoming employed at $414.09 per month. That, however, results in a net increase to appel-lee of $156.09 per month. While appellee also stated she lost certain other benefits as a result of becoming employed, she has not established that the ensuing difference results in a substantial change of circumstances.

At the same time, appellant’s income earned at the time of the modification hearing indicates he has suffered a decrease in income. While his employment as a painter results in surges of income, the evidence at the time of the modification hearing does not support his ability to pay more than originally ordered. Neither does the evidence carry appellee’s burden of demonstrating a greater need. Under the standard set by this court in Fox v. Haislett, 388 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), the order increasing child support was in error and we, therefore, reverse.

Appellant does not challenge that part of the modification order mandating medical insurance or a division of medical expenses relating to the child. That portion of the order is therefore affirmed.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Harold Lee Davis, seeks review of the trial court’s order which granted appellee, Deby Ruth Odom, a modification of child support which resulted in a 150% increase in payments from $30 per [675]*675week to $75 per week. The original requirement for child support payments was contained in a final judgment of paternity entered August 1, 1983, for a child who, at the time, was eleven months of age. On October 11, 1984, appellee petitioned for modification requesting an increase in payments.

The record indicates that appellee had lost $258 per month as a result of becoming employed at $414.09 per month. That, however, results in a net increase to appel-lee of $156.09 per month. While appellee also stated she lost certain other benefits as a result of becoming employed, she has not established that the ensuing difference results in a substantial change of circumstances.

At the same time, appellant’s income earned at the time of the modification hearing indicates he has suffered a decrease in income. While his employment as a painter results in surges of income, the evidence at the time of the modification hearing does not support his ability to pay more than originally ordered. Neither does the evidence carry appellee’s burden of demonstrating a greater need. Under the standard set by this court in Fox v. Haislett, 388 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), the order increasing child support was in error and we, therefore, reverse.

Appellant does not challenge that part of the modification order mandating medical insurance or a division of medical expenses relating to the child. That portion of the order is therefore affirmed.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 So. 2d 674, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1615, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack