Conness v. Conness

REVERSED. We agree with appellant that the trial court and the special master erred in concluding that the appellee’s child support obligations should be reduced or eliminated. However, we find no error in the trial court’s holding that the appellant was not entitled to an increase in said support payments.

We reject appellee’s claim that financial circumstances known to him at the time of the original agreement may provide a sufficient basis to modify the agreement in the future. See Waskin v. Waskin, 484 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1986). We also reject his…