Mazzula v. Mazzula

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mazzula v. Mazzula

256 So. 2d 62, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5559

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1971

DocketNo. 71-618

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 So. 2d 62 (Mazzula v. Mazzula) 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

Mazzula v. Mazzula, 256 So. 2d 62, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5559 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinions

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant brings for review a post judgment order which, among other things, reduced the amount of child support payments for which her former husband had been obligated under the final judgment of divorce.

The final judgment established the extent of the father’s obligation for support of his minor children. In order for him to be entitled to a modification of this obligation for support, it is fundamental that he must prove a change in financial circumstances occurring subsequent to the final judgment, either in his ability to provide, or in the needs of the children. Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 53; Chandler v. Chandler, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 697; Simmons v. Simmons, Fla. App.1966, 192 So.2d 325 and Cherney v. Cherney, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 914.

Appellee’s petition for modification of support payments did not allege, and the evidence in support thereof did not show, any change in financial circumstances oc[63]*63curring subsequent to the final judgment, either in his ability to support the minor children or in the children’s needs.

We reverse that portion of the order appealed which modifies appellee’s obligation for child support payments as theretofore established by the final judgment. In all other respects the order is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

WALDEN, J., concurs. CROSS, J., dissents, with opinion.

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

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant brings for review a post judgment order which, among other things, reduced the amount of child support payments for which her former husband had been obligated under the final judgment of divorce.

The final judgment established the extent of the father’s obligation for support of his minor children. In order for him to be entitled to a modification of this obligation for support, it is fundamental that he must prove a change in financial circumstances occurring subsequent to the final judgment, either in his ability to provide, or in the needs of the children. Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 53; Chandler v. Chandler, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 697; Simmons v. Simmons, Fla. App.1966, 192 So.2d 325 and Cherney v. Cherney, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 914.

Appellee’s petition for modification of support payments did not allege, and the evidence in support thereof did not show, any change in financial circumstances oc[63]*63curring subsequent to the final judgment, either in his ability to support the minor children or in the children’s needs.

We reverse that portion of the order appealed which modifies appellee’s obligation for child support payments as theretofore established by the final judgment. In all other respects the order is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

WALDEN, J., concurs. CROSS, J., dissents, with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 So. 2d 62, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzula-v-mazzula-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack