Change in Circumstances Not Shown
Evidence presented was wholly inadequate to prove a substantial change in circumstances necessary for the termination of monthly maintenance payment. In re Logston
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding there had been no change in circumstances which would permit the modification sought by plaintiff where father did not show a change in financial resources of child, mother or father or in physical, emotional and educational needs of child. In re Emerson
The trial court could properly have determined that the small increase in custodial parent’s salary did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of the child support order. In re Butler
Where an ex-husband’s financial position appeared to have improved since the divorce, it appeared that the wife had never earned more than $3,500 in any given year, and that her monthly expenses exceeded her maintenance, and her testimony concerning her health and as to her ability to maintain limited employment was uncontroverted, there was nothing in the record of a substantial change in circumstances which would have warranted a reduction in maintenance and the trial court erred in so ordering. Goldberg v. Goldberg
The record did not demonstrate that the former husband sustained his burden of showing that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred which would have justified a downward modification of support payment. Roqueplot v. Roqueplot
Defendant did not establish a substantial change of his circumstances to justify suspension or termination of payments. In re Potter
Under section 19 of the former Divorce Act, (see now this section), where a court’s order of March 22, 1977, clearly stated that plaintiff had failed to show a material change in circumstances since entry of the order entered on or about November 26, 1975, the court’s material change in the circumstances of the parties, and assuming arguendo that the court found a material change in plaintiff’s circumstances only, a modification of the decree still could not stand since a careful examination of the record revealed no evidence that defendant was able to pay additional alimony. Dunn v. Dunn
Husband’s increased expenses, largely the result of only secondary of a house pursuant to his remarriage, where of only secondary consideration vis-à-vis the obligation owed to his former wife on the question of support and were not a change in circumstances warranting a reduction in maintenance. Berkeimer v. Berkeimer
Where the trial court considered the provisions at issue and the various arguments of counsel and concluded that the decree contemplated a monthly child support payment of $550, without contingencies or abatements and, therefore, the sale of the former marital residence was not a material change in circumstances so as to warrant a reduction in child support payments, this construction was reasonable and not clearly erroneous so as to require the reviewing court to disturb the trial court’s ruling. Winter v. Winter
A judgment terminating the respondent’s child support obligation, setting aside a lien of trust from respondent’s interest in a trust and removing the obligations of injunction prohibiting him from conveying, transferring or assigning his interest in that property was reversed where no change in circumstances existed and where the original reason for ordering the respondent’s chief asset, his fractional interest in the trust, to be placed in trust as security for the future payment, of the court ordered child support was because of the respondent’s demonstrated untrustworthiness and to insure continued payment of child support from the respondent’s assets in the event of the respondent’s refusal to do so. Gentile v. Gentile
While there was a statement in the record by wife’s counsel that husband was making the payments on the second mortgage, there was no indication that he ceased making those payments and thus, there simply was no evidence in the record to support the wife’s allegation that circumstances had changed since the entry of the decree and thus modification of child support was not warranted. Waggoner v. Waggoner
There was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that intervening circumstances had substantially changed to justify a modification of support payment under this section. Westerberg v. Stephens
Even had defendant lost overtime earnings, this would not have been a permanent change in circumstances and thus could not have been a valid basis for permanent reduction of child support payments. Dixon v. Dixon
The evidence did not reveal a change of circumstances warranting an increase in child support. Nordstrom v. Nordstrom
As to the children’s increased needs, plaintiff’s testimony consisted almost entirely of general statements and was often concerned with the rise in prices due to inflation; increased expenditures due to inflation apply to defendant as well as to plaintiff; consequently, this factor, in and of itself, is not sufficient to establish a material change in circumstances. Nordstrom v. Nordstrom
