Young v. Young

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Young v. Young

290 So. 2d 566

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 1974

DocketNo. 73-315

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 So. 2d 566 (Young v. Young) 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

Young v. Young, 290 So. 2d 566 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the wife, respondent below, from a final judgment entered in favor of the husband, petitioner below, wherein the trial court modified the support and maintenance provisions embodied in a 1966 New York final judgment. The evidence in the record fails to demonstrate a “substantial change m the circumstances of the parties” which is a fundamental prerequisite in a modification proceeding. Barsumian v. Barsumian, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 515. From the record it appears there was no substantial change in the petitioner’s ability to pay; on the contrary, the petitioner’s financial condition has improved when considering petitioner’s total income and assets. See Adams v. Adams, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 794; Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 346; Carmel v. Carmel, Fla.App.1973, 282 So.2d 6; De Francisco v. De Francisco, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 780. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial change in the needs of the wife. See De Francisco v. De Francisco, supra; Carmel v. Carmel, supra. See also Firestone v. Firestone, Fla.1972, 263 So.2d 223.

Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the wife, respondent below, from a final judgment entered in favor of the husband, petitioner below, wherein the trial court modified the support and maintenance provisions embodied in a 1966 New York final judgment. The evidence in the record fails to demonstrate a “substantial change m the circumstances of the parties” which is a fundamental prerequisite in a modification proceeding. Barsumian v. Barsumian, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 515. From the record it appears there was no substantial change in the petitioner’s ability to pay; on the contrary, the petitioner’s financial condition has improved when considering petitioner’s total income and assets. See Adams v. Adams, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 794; Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 346; Carmel v. Carmel, Fla.App.1973, 282 So.2d 6; De Francisco v. De Francisco, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 780. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial change in the needs of the wife. See De Francisco v. De Francisco, supra; Carmel v. Carmel, supra. See also Firestone v. Firestone, Fla.1972, 263 So.2d 223.

Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 So. 2d 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-young-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack