Maureen K. is the petitioner in this case and James H. is the respondent.
History
In 1995, a motion was filed that aimed to increase the child support payments made by Mr. H from $45 to $106 weekly. Mr. H objected to this order, and a Hearing Examiner was assigned to the issue.
In this case, the plaintiff is Margaret A., and Shawn B. is the defendant.
Modification of Child Support
Three circumstances entitled a person to seek an adjustment of assessed child support. The first is if a drastic change in circumstances occurs. The second is if either party’s income has changed by more than 15% since the last time the order was modified or from when it was entered. Finally, it can be challenged for modification if it has been more than three years since an order was entered on the matter.
A New York Family Lawyer said the appellant of the case is Harry Louis Eckel who is represented by Dennis A. Barbarisi, from Fort Walton Beach. The appellee of the case is Anita Karla Eckel who is represented by John P. Townsend of Chesser, Wingard, Barr & Townsend in Fort Walton Beach.
The Appeal
Harry Louis Eckel is seeking an appeal from an order made by the circuit court that dismisses his petition for dissolution of his marriage based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
Queens Family 19
This is a hearing for divorce and the plaintiff and defendants are Chaachou versus Chaachou et al.
Original Case
The petitioner of the case is the father and the respondent in the case is the Department of Children and Families. The lawyer for the petitioner is Kathleen K. Pena from the Law Office of Kathleen K. Pena. The lawyers for the respondent are Charles J. Crist, Jr., The Attorney General, and Lori R. Shapiro, the Assistant Attorney General of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The judge for the case is J. Klein.
Petitioner’s Case
The petitioner in this particular case is seeking a petition for writ of prohibition for one of his children, T.S. He states that the state of Florida does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of T.S., his child. The petitioner states that he should be granted the petition based on the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction Act, section 61.514 in the Florida Statutes. He states that as the child, T.S. was not born while they resided in Florida, the state does not have proper jurisdiction to handle this particular case.
This is a hearing for divorce and the plaintiff and defendants are Chaachou versus Chaachou et al.
Original Case
This is a divorce hearing that dealt with a divorce, suit money, and counsel fees as well as both temporary and permanent alimony. The relief in the case deals with a common law marriage. There is a petition for certiorari that seeks to end an order that holds that a common law marriage is not sufficient to support alimony, suit money, and attorney’s fees.
In this case, Ronald A. Usenza and Maura G. Gannon were both respondents and petitioners, while Maura G. Gannon was named only as a respondent.
The father objected to the Findings of Fact and order which occurred after a reversal and remand was issued by the Appellate Division. Now, the Support Magistrate must once again take up the issue and make a ruling on the child support issues based only on information presented in the original petitions from the year 2000, as everything submitted after that point is invalid and must not be taken into account.
History
Frances Bill is the respondent in this case where Gerald Bill was the appellant.
Summary
The Child Support Standards Act is the standard method used to determine child support payments based on the parents income. One of the issues included in the act is that the costs of child care are to be shared by parents in proportion to their earnings, and whether those terms can be enforced when the parties are unaware of the terms of the CSSA. The court ended up agreeing with the Family Court which ordered the father in the case to pay a percentage of the child care expenses encountered by the mother.
Frances W. is the petitioner and Steven M. is the respondent.
The Issue
The petitioner sought an order of child support against the respondent which was subsequently denied after a hearing.
In this case, Nina Luca was the plaintiff and Dominick Luca the defendant.
History
Dominick Luca originally requested a lowering of his ordered child support payments. His circumstances have allegedly changed which requires a reassessment based on the CSSA regulations. He also requested a modification or dismissal of an agreement regarding the dispersal of property. He also requested that a divorce judgment be set aside based on the modification of the property agreement. Finally, he required that he was paid by the plaintiff in the amount of $101,687 based on the terms of the agreement regarding the sale of their former home.
New York Family Law Blog