Rothschild v. Strauss
| Decision Date | 31 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 319,319 |
| Citation | 263 A.2d 511,257 Md. 396 |
| Parties | Stanford Z. ROTHSCHILD, Jr. v. Jacqueline S. STRAUSS. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
William W. Cahill Jr., Baltimore (William N. Dunphy, Rockville, on the brief), for appellant.
Ronald P. Seres (Harvey B. Steinberg, Bethesda, and Steinberg & Seres, Bethesda, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.
In this case we shall affirm the action of the chancellor (Moore, J.) who increased an award for the support of a minor child.
In 1961 the parties agreed to disagree and, seemingly have agreed on little since then. An agreement which covered, among other things, support of the minor child with whom we are here concerned was entered into at that time. This was followed by a Nevada divorce procured by the wife. She has since remarried and resides in Montgomery County. Several years ago the Circuit Court for that county acquired jurisdiction when the father filed a petition in which he asked that court to revise custody rights and visitation rights. The 1961 agreement provided that if the mother remarried there should be paid for support of the daughter the amount of $312.50 per month. She was born July 23, 1954. Judge Moore increased this award to $600.00 per month, pointing in his opinion to the mother's estimate of $925.00 per month for the daughter's needs, the increase in cost of living since 1961, the fact that 'the child is a maturing young lady whose social, cultural and other interests are increasing and changing' and 'the social and financial status of her father and mother'.
Code (1957), Art. 16, § 28 provides that an agreement such as that heretofore entered into in this case relative to support of children is subject to revision by the courts, 'looking always to the best interests of such infants'.
As Judge Barnes observed for the Court in Wagshal v. Wagshal, 249 Md. 143, 238 A.2d 903 (1968), each case involving awards for the support of children rests upon its own facts. He further said in that case:
Id. at 147-148, 238 A.2d at 906.
This case is a bit unusual in that the parties have stipulated that the father is able to pay any increase in child...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kramer v. Kramer
...(1971). The supporting parent's financial ability and the needs of the children are the controlling factors. Rothschild v. Strauss, 257 Md. 396, 397, 263 A.2d 511, 512 (1970); Wagshal v. Wagshal, 249 Md. 143, 147-48, 238 A.2d 903, 906 (1968); Chalkley v. Chalkley, 240 Md. 743, 744, 215 A.2d......
-
Unkle v. Unkle
...must balance the best interests and needs of the child with the parents' financial ability to meet those needs. Rothschild v. Strauss, 257 Md. 396, 263 A.2d 511 (1970); Wagshal v. Wagshal, 249 Md. 143, 238 A.2d 903 (1968); Holston v. Holston, 58 Md.App. 308, 473 A.2d 459 (1984). Factors whi......
-
Monticello v. Monticello
...or decrees which are made in the best interests of the children because of a change in circumstances, see, e. g., Rothschild v. Strauss, 257 Md. 396, 263 A.2d 511 (1970), and in the usual case, is confined to a change in the amount, rather than the duration, of the Decree reversed, case rem......
-
Gladis v. Gladisova
...Mr. Gladis's financial ability to meet them. See Unkle v. Unkle, 305 Md. 587, 597, 505 A.2d 849, 854 (1986); Rothschild v. Strauss, 257 Md. 396, 398, 263 A.2d 511, 512 (1970); Wagshal v. Wagshal, 249 Md. 143, 147-48, 238 A.2d 903, 906 (1968). In applying the balancing test, the court should......