McKenna v. McKenna, 68--466
| Decision Date | 18 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--466,68--466 |
| Citation | 220 So.2d 433 |
| Parties | Marjorie S. McKENNA, Appellant, v. Phillip C. McKENNA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fink & Syna, Miami, for appellant.
Pearson & Josefsberg, Miami, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellant Marjorie S. McKenna and the appellee Phillip C. McKenna married on December 21, 1944. The former filed suit for divorce in the circuit court of Dade County on September 9, 1965, and obtained a decree of divorce on August 17, 1966. Some weeks prior to the entry of the decree, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement. By its terms the wife was awarded custody of the youngest two of the five children born of the marriage (aged 13 and 5 years), and the husband was given custody of the three older children; the husband agreed to pay $30 per week for support of each of the two younger children plus designated medical and dental expenses, and a year's tuition in a private school for one of them; the wife received a substantial amount of money and property; 1 and each retained separately owned property and released the other from all claims. The final decree of divorce contained a paragraph ratifying the agreement and making it a part thereof.
On January 30, 1967, the wife filed this separate suit against the husband, in the circuit court of Dade County, seeking to set aside the agreement and the provision of the decree which ratified it, and, in the alternative, modification of the agreement, to require the husband to pay alimony, and to increase the child support. Later, by a stipulation of the parties, the wife's asserted cause of action to set aside the property settlement agreement was dismissed with prejudice, reserving to her the right to continue the cause to seek modification. Thereafter the trial court denied the wife's request for alimony, holding that the property settlement was not subject to modification under § 65.15 (now § 61.14) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. In a separate order the court, with reference to child support, found 'the evidence proves that there is increased need for additional monies for the support of the two minor children in the custody of the plaintiff.' By that order the amount to be paid for support of each of the two children who were in the wife's custody was increased from $30 to $50 per week, and the husband was ordered to pay all bills for drugs and medicines prescribed for the children, and to pay for lessons for them for ballet, guitar, piano, scuba diving, drama, 'or any further educational type lessons that are provided for either or both of the children.'
On this appeal, taken by the wife from those two orders, it is contended the trial court committed error in holding that the agreement and the decree based thereon were not subject to modification. That contention is without merit. The agreement which the parties entered into and which became a part of the decree was not one providing for payment of support or alimony to the wife. The terms of the agreement clearly reflect its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lang v. Lang
...correctness of increased allowance of child support has the burden of demonstrating on record an abuse of discretion. McKenna v. McKenna, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 433. It is a fundamental proposition that the welfare of minor children is the concern of the state in which the child may reside......
-
Gilbert v. Gilbert, 75--44
...164 So.2d 231; Salomon v. Salomon, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 39; Salomon v. Salomon, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 111; McKenna v. McKenna, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 433. For the reasons stated, the order appealed from is ...
-
Sadlowski v. Sadlowski, 71--183
...the trial court's determinations will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of an abuse of that discretion. E.g., McKenna v. McKenna, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 433; Nixon v. Nixon, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 263. A modification of support payments will be granted only upon a showing of a ......
-
Yagoda v. Klein, 73-1376
...Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 313; Salomon v. Salomon, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 111; Howell v. Howell, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 231; McKenna v. McKenna, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 433. Cf. Schulman v. Schulman, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d ...