Dixon v. Moody

352 So. 2d 950
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 13, 1977
DocketFF-485
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 352 So. 2d 950 (Dixon v. Moody) 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
Dixon v. Moody, 352 So. 2d 950 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

352 So.2d 950 (1977)

Betty Jo DIXON, Formerly Betty Jo Moody, Appellant,
v.
Howard Wilson MOODY, Appellee.

No. FF-485.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 13, 1977.

*951 Jerry R. Poole, of Pinkston & Poole, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Floyd G. Yeager, Jacksonville, for appellee.

BOYER, Judge.

No recitation of facts is necessary to resolve the two issues presented by this appeal nor to announce or clarify (if such be necessary) the controlling law.

Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence, over her objection, in a proceeding by her seeking an increase in child support payments awarded by a prior final judgment in a dissolution proceeding, as to the value of property awarded to her by that final judgment pursuant to a pre-judgment stipulation of the parties. We hold that it was and is properly within the discretion of a trial judge, when considering an award of child support or a modification thereof, to allow evidence of, and to consider, any and all assets owned by either or both parties, regardless of the source of those assets. The source from which the possessing party obtained a particular asset, and the nature of the asset (viz: whether fixed or liquid) are factors which may be considered by the trial court, and it is not error to admit evidence of the existence and possession of the asset. (For a somewhat similar holding see Birge v. Simpson, 280 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)).

Appellant next urges that the trial court erred in the amount by which the child support was increased. Although the increase in award was, in our view, conservative, we cannot hold, giving the order of the trial court the presumption of correctness required by law, that he abused his discretion and thereby erred.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.

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

Related

Hayden v. Hayden
662 So. 2d 713 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Cimitier v. Cimitier
579 So. 2d 142 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Granville v. Granville
445 So. 2d 362 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Tash v. Oesterle
380 So. 2d 1316 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Page v. Page
371 So. 2d 543 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
352 So. 2d 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-moody-fladistctapp-1977.