Case Name: Shirley Ann SIMONET, Appellant, v. Richard H. SIMONET, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-06-08
Citations: 279 So. 2d 35
Docket Number: No. 72-364
Parties: Shirley Ann SIMONET, Appellant, v. Richard H. SIMONET, Appellee.
Judges: REED, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 279
Pages: 35–38

Head Matter:
Shirley Ann SIMONET, Appellant, v. Richard H. SIMONET, Appellee.
No. 72-364.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 8, 1973.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1973.
Egerton K. van den Berg, of van den Berg, Gay, Burke & Dyer, Orlando, for appellant.
Gilbert S. Goshorn, of' Goshorn, Stahley, Nabors & Miller, Titusville, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Circuit Court for Brevard County, Florida entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties on 21 December 1971. The appellant, Mrs. Simonet contends here that the lower court erred in its award of support for the children of the marriage. (She has raised other contentions which, in our opinion, do not require discussion and are without merit.) We find no error in the trial court's award of support.
The parties have two children. The trial court ordered Mr. Simonet to pay $300.00 per month for their support. .Mrs. Simonet contends that this amount is inadequate. The pertinent criteria by which to measure child support is, of course, the child's needs and the parent's ability to pay. The appellant filed two statements in' the trial court outlining monthly expenses incurred for her and the children. Unfortunately neither of these statements apportions the expenses between the, children and the appellant. On IS June 1970 the appellant filed one sworn statement indicating that she and the children claimed monthly expenses of $1,127.00. On 22 October 1971 she filed a second statement indicating that she and the children then had combined monthly expenses of $1,364.17.
As to the husband's ability to pay, it appears that Mr. Simonet filed an affidavit on IS June 1970 alleging monthly expenses of $1,340.97 and forthcoming obligations of $9,525.00. He claimed an income of approximately $21,000.00 for 1970 and the parties apparently treated 1970 as the benchmark year for the compilation of income and expenses. There is evidence, however, indicating that Mr. Simonet's income since 1970 has risen substantially. Whether the increase is merely a temporary increase due to a change in his position or whether it represents a permanent increase in his earning capacity is impossible to determine from the present record.
A review of the record reveals that the trial court had before it for consideration not only the above factors, but a myriad of others, including alleged falsification of resources and expenses and diverse arguments as to Mrs. Simonet's ability to work. It appears to us that the trial judge patiently considered these many items and reached his conclusion based upon what he considered to be the weight of the evidence. The trial judge not only ordered Mr. Si-monet to pay $300.00 per month child support, but also granted Mrs. Simonet $3,-000.00 in lump sum alimony, title to the family car and title to the family residence.
An appellant seeking to alter an award of support at the appellate level must show a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. Morse v. Morse, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 449. In our judgment, the present record simply does not indicate such an abuse of discretion. We would remind, for whatever it may be worth, that if the support provided by the final judgment proves inadequate as the children's ages increase, the trial court may always review the situation on a motion to modify under § 61.14, F.S.1971, F.S.A.
Affirmed.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
CROSS, J., dissents with opinion.