Divorce Lawyers Dallas

The modification of child support provisions rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be interfered with in the absence of an abuse of that discretion or unless a manifest injustice has been done. In re Runge
Although the modification or termination of alimony provisions in a divorce decree rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, such a modification or termination must not be made arbitrarily or capriciously, but rather must be equitable and must be based upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties. Gorman v. Gorman
Modification of a divorce decree rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and courts of review will not disturb its findings unless the evidence clearly so requires. Dendrinos v. Dendrinos
Whether the alimony to be paid by the defendant should have been terminated rested in the sound discretion of the court. Tan v. Tan
Alteration of an order respecting support payments rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and unless the record shows an abuse of that discretion such an order will generally not be disturbed on review. Edwards v. Edwards
The modification of provisions for the payment of alimony and child support rests in the sound discretion of the court and a reviewing court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion in the absence of its abuse. Scalfaro v. Scalfaro

Divorce Lawyers Los Angeles

The parties to a divorce intended that their agreement constitute a property settlement, where the agreement plainly provided that the payments were for and in consideration of the wife quitclaiming her interest in various pieces of marital property, both parties expressly waived all claims to alimony, and the agreement’s provision for a definite total sum was to be paid at the end of a definite period of time rather than on a periodic basis for an indefinite period of time which is characteristic of maintenance. In re Lowe

Divorce Lawyers Philadelphia

A termination or modification of alimony must reflect a substantial change in the needs of the parties and cannot be used to punish the moral transgressions of the wife. Hall v. Hall

Womens Divorce Lawyers

Trial court’s denial of a reduction or termination of former husband’s maintenance was not an abuse of discretion, notwithstanding husband’s retirement and increased medical costs because of his present wife’s ill health; evidence established that the former husband had substantial assets from which to pay his present wife’s medical bills and the maintenance award. In re Schrimpf
The evidence was clear that the parties intended monthly payments to be something more than simple maintenance: where respondent conveyed away substantive marital property interests, in return for conveying her interest in farmland and farm equipment, she received only interest income from the trust and the monthly payments, and the payments were non-modifiable monthly payments until her death, rather than maintenance terminable by the provisions of this section. In re Scherrick
Petitioner was earning $4 per hour, a sum, only slightly above the minimum wage, while respondent had a career position with the State of Illinois, petitioner had no medical insurance and was afflicted with serious medical problems and housing difficulties; therefore, there was not basis to disturb the trial court’s order awarding periodic permanent maintenance to petitioner. In re Popovich
The court did not abuse its discretion in failing to reduce the amount of maintenance ordered, there was conflicting evidence regarding petitioners’ ability to pay the amount awarded, and the court chose to believe there was no substantial change in circumstances, because the petitioner had lied at trial about certain assets, and the court clearly could question petitioners’ credibility, denied. In re Demond
Where, due to illness, respondent’s need for maintenance had increased substantially since the entry of the divorce decree, and where petitioner’s inability to pay maintenance was largely the result of indebtedness incurred by him, denial of modification of award was proper. Geittmann v. Geittmann

Womens Divorce Lawyers

Death of Parent
Where the settlement agreement established the father’s obligation to pay for the children’s college expenses even where they attained their majority, subject only to his financial ability to pay and the children’s aptitude for higher education, the fact that he died before his ability to pay was adjudicated did not mitigate that responsibility. In re Oldham
Under subsection (d) of this section and section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/513), the circuit court may not enter an order against the estate of a circuit court may not enter an order against the estate of a non-custodial deceased parent for the payment of college expenses of a non-minor child when no such previous obligation was imposed upon the parent to be charged prior to his death. Treacy v. Treacy

___Modification in Error
Trial court abused its discretion in modifying respondent’s obligation to provide that respondent did not have any obligation to pay for the college expenses of his son, which obligation was conditioned on his son being college material and on respondent’s financial ability to provide for the expenses, because in order to make an intelligent and useful decision, there would have to be facts to indicate whether respondent’s son was college material, what his expenses would be, and respondent’s financial ability at that time to provide for the expenses; at the time respondent brought his petition, none of these things could be ascertained. In re Walters

___Termination
Where a divorce decree did not provide support for the educational expenses of the parties’ non-minor children and stated that the question of educational expenses was to be reserved for future consideration, and the support awarded in the decree was support for the three minor children, this type of support terminated when the children were emancipated and the divorce decree did not obligate the father to continue paying child support after the youngest child attained majority. In re Pauley

Employment

___Reasonable Diligence
Even in the absence of an enforceable agreement, there was no reason why the doctrine of equitable estoppel could not be applied as to all or part of past installments in an appropriate case. Anderson v. Anderson

Evidence

___Parol Evidence
Where the evidence established a mutual mistake of fact contained within a property settlement agreement, the court properly considered patrol evidence of the settlement negotiations. In re Johnson

Womens Divorce Lawyers

Where the relationship between ex-wife and male friend was of a relatively short duration, although they did have sexual relations, she would see him usually only every other month, they had not taken vacations together, owned no real estate or personal property together, and they had no joint bank accounts, the evidence showed she did not do his laundry and did not use maintenance to buy anything for him, he did not discipline the children and his principal involvement was playing chess with them, although there was sufficient evidence presented to grant the petition to terminate, there also was sufficient evidence to deny the petition; in such circumstances, that ex-wife and male friend were not engaged in a resident, continuing, conjugal relationship was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Lambdin
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying husband’s petition to terminate maintenance based on ex-wife’s failure to seek appropriate training or education to become financially independent; ex-wife only had a general equivalency diploma and was custodian of two minor children. Moreover, she had a hearing problem which required her to read lips and caused a speech impediment and finally, only three years had passed since the dissolution of the marriage. In re Lambdin
Where the wife was able to secure employment but there was evidence in the record indicating that she had held her new job for only two years and that even with this new source of income, her resources were insufficient to provide for her reasonable needs, where the prospects of this situation improving were speculative at best, especially considering that the wife suffered from a physical condition which apparently rendered her incontinent, and where by contrast, the record indicated that the husband continued to prosper and that he could still comfortably provide the maintenance payments specified in the dissolution judgment, there was no maintenance payments should not be terminated. In re Whiting
There was no abuse of discretion in refusing to terminate maintenance payments where the record indicated that the respondent suffered some significant financial misfortune, but respondent failed to present sufficient evidence of a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a termination of maintenance payments. In re Ingram

Where respondent expressly agreed to remain obligated to pay child support if the children were enrolled as full-time students in high school or college, trial court did not err in entering order increasing child support for adult children 19 and 20 years of age who were attending college, due to inflation and the increased expenses of the children in general, including utilities and food. Falat v. Falat
Where ex-spouse changed occupations to improve his prospects for the future he was allowed a reduction in child support until the new occupation became lucrative. In re Lavelle
Evidence presented regarding a child’s increased food, clothing, baby-sitting, and preschool expenses provided sufficient grounds for the trial court’s modification of father’s child support obligation. In re Stone
Where there was no evidence to support the conclusion that respondent’s participation in a strike was motivated by a desire to jeopardize his children’s interests or to evade financial responsibility for their support, respondent participated in the strike in “good faith” and was therefore entitled to a reduction in child support reflective of his present ability to pay. Cohn v. Cohn
The court’s order increasing support by $85 per month was not an abuse of discretion, where the record was devoid of any evidence of the lifestyle of the child and testimony concerning expenses admittedly involved only guesses. Harner v. Harner
Where the financial situation of the mother required her to contribute to the children’s support, it was not equitable to require her to bear 82% of the amount of the increase in the cost of raising the children, therefore, since the father’s income and net worthy had also increased substantially the child support payment for the father was increased. In re Roth
The provision of the decree awarding possession of the marital home to the defendant was characterized as a provision for child support, and, therefore, subject to modification, based upon the fact that the children were now residing with the plaintiff, and that their use of the marital home of the parties as a residence was no longer required. Lamp v. Lamp
The record did not clearly support the amount of the increase which was awarded. In re Schmerold
A petition for an increase in child support is allowed if there has been a substantial change in circumstances and the petitioner has provided the opposing party with notice. Bayuk v. Bayuk
Where ex-husband’s income was considerably greater than wife’s and fluctuated a great deal, the modification of child support payments to be self-modifying as a percentage of his income was neither an abuse of the trial court’s discretion nor against the manifest weight of the evidence. Smith v. Smith
In a modification action, the increased needs of the children required that the father be ordered to increase his child support payments, consistent with his increased earnings; it was clearly apparent that the father could readily afford more than the amount which was ordered by the trial court and that in light of his salary supporting his own children. Spencer v. Spencer
Although some of the costs to which petitioner testified were excessive, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding an increase in child support. Scott v. Scott
A decree which modified support upon the plaintiff/wife’s remarriage was upheld where there was a substantial basis in this record for the findings of the chancellor, where plaintiff, the adult daughter of the parties, and several other witnesses, corroborated the basis for the findings, and where an attorney who was friendly with both parties testified that defendant admitted the basis for the chancellor’s findings. Loeb v. Gendel

See Also: Divorce Lawyers Indianapolis

Child support obligations may be increased pursuant to this section based upon the supporting parent’s increased ability to pay, regardless of whether the child’s needs have also increased. Wilson v. Wilson
The financial status of a divorced parent’s current spouse should not be considered in determining the ability of that spouse to fulfill his or her duty to support. In re Kessler
In assessing the children’s increased needs, it is proper to consider that they have grown older and that the cost of living has risen, but this must be balanced against the relative ability of the parents to provide for the children. In re Cooper
Child support payments must necessarily reflect a balance of the intensity of the child’s needs with the ability of the parents to provide for that need. Gentile v. Gentile

If parties to a marital settlement agreement intend, on dissolution, to preclude judicial modification of maintenance as to amount, it may be better practice to do so in clear and express terms in a paragraph separate from that limiting termination of maintenance. In re Brent
While maintenance provision are modifiable upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances, property settlement provisions are not, unless a court finds the execution of the settlement agreement was accompanied by some element of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. In re Munford
Where the agreement contained no provision which specifically precluded modification, the agreement was modifiable. In re Martino
Once an agreement is embodied in a divorce decree, its terms will not be modified absent fraud, coercion or contrariness to public policy. In re Roth.
The power of the court to modify periodic payments of maintenance and child support is not diminished because the amount of payments was fixed by a settlement agreement agreed to by the parties and incorporated in the decree. Potocki v. Potocki

The circumstances were clearly changed from the time when an original divorce decree was entered and both children were alive and living at home, to when, after the death of one child, the only expenses for the care and support of the other child were monthly payments to the institution in which he lived until has death. Needler v. Needler
See Also: Divorce Laywers New York