Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 09.07.1986 399 AI generated

Court dismissed child support increase claim due to lack of proven significant circumstances warranting change.

Case Number Helsingin HO 09.07.1986 399
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the plaintiff's request to increase child support payments during the pendency of a divorce proceeding. Although the initial order required monthly payments until the children turned 18, the plaintiff argued for an increase without substantiating any material change in circumstances. The court ruled that without evidence of such changes, the statutory conditions for modifying the support amount were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ElatusL 11 §; Child support may only be increased upon proof of significant changes in circumstances affecting the child's needs or the parent's ability to pay.

Keywords

AI generated
child support modification significant circumstances divorce proceedings alimony increase financial capacity

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ElatusL 11 §
Kun elatusapuja ei ollut määrätty maksettavaksi vain asumuseron ajan, oli avioerokanteen yhteydessä esitetty elatusapujen korottamista koskeva vaatimus ratkaistava ElatusL 11 §:n nojalla.
AI generated
appeal_1981_kouvola__1141
Court upheld agreement reducing alimony below statutory minimum as no proof of unfairness or material change existed.
appeal_1984_eastern-finland__1070
Court allows state to pay child support from age 17 to 18, overriding Tapaturmavirasto's earlier denial.
appeal_1980_kouvola__282
Court increased child support due to improved income, disregarding prior lump-sum payment benefit.
kko-precedent_1991_137
Supreme Court allows divorce-related child support lump sum claim as incidental request without separate filing.
appeal_1984_eastern-finland__1825
Alimony claim dismissed because child could self-support during military service without state reimbursement for living costs.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

KO oli asianosaisten asumuseron yhteydessä velvoittanut A:n suorittamaan kahdelle alaikäiselle lapselleen elatusapua 350 mk kuukaudessa lasta kohden kunnes lapset täyttävät 18 vuotta tai elatusavuista toisin määrätään. Kun elatusapuja ei ollut määrätty maksettavaksi vain asumuseron ajan, oli avioerokanteen yhteydessä esitetty elatusapujen korottamista koskeva vaatimus ratkaistava ElatusL 11 §:n nojalla. Kun ei ollut edes väitetty niissä olosuhteissa, jotka on otettava huomioon elatusapuja vahvistettaessa, tapahtuneen niin olennaisia muutoksia, että elatusapua olisi tullut muuttaa, HO hylkäsi kanteen elatusapujen muuttamista koskevilta osin.

Lapsioikeuden pääpiirteet (II painos, Heikki E.S. Mattila)

ss. 251-252.

Läsnä: Tikkanen, Nikula ja Riikonen (apuj.) Esittelijä: Hattari

Lainvoimainen