Waller v. Waller

• Decision Date: 09 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. 67--971,67--971
• Citation: 212 So.2d 352
• Parties: Richmond N. WALLER, Appellant, v. Dorothy WALLER, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 352

212 So.2d 352

Richmond N. WALLER, Appellant, v.Dorothy WALLER, Appellee.

No. 67--971.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 9, 1968.

George B. Hardie, Jr., So. Miami, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen and Christopher C. Larimore, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order increasing child support payments after the entry of a final decree of divorce.The appellant is the former husband.The appellee, former wife, has cross assigned error and urges that the court erred in not further modifying the final decree to provide for an increase in alimony.She also urges that the court erred in denying her prayer for attorneys' fees.

The main thrust of appellant's attack upon the order modifying the final decree is that the trial judge was too liberal in increasing the amount of child support for the three children from $75.00 each per month to $125.00 each per month and in adding the provision that the appellant shall pay 'the reasonable and necessary medical and dental expenses for the children during their minority.'The appellant does not argue that there has been no change in circumstances but admits a substantial increase in his earning capacity.The amount of child support is a matter peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the trial judge and will not be changed by an appellate court unless a clear abuse of discretion has been shown.SeeGinsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 137, 138, 2 A.L.R.3d 592, and authorities cited therein.We do not think that an abuse of discretion has been demonstrated upon the amount of child support allowed or the inclusion of the provision for future medical expenses.All provisions for child support are temporary in nature and subject to revision where a change in circumstances occurs.If an abuse of the medical provision occurs, as the appellant argues is possible, then the court may take such fact into consideration upon a petition of the former husband in the trial court.

Appellant's second point urges that the court should have reduced or eliminated the amount of alimony because the former wife is now employed as a legal secretary.Appellant's answer to his former wife's petition prayed that the provision for alimony be reduced or eliminated.The amount of alimony was stipulated by the parties at the time of the final decree.The payment of the alimony was not made contingent upon the former wife's remaining...