CARROLL E. TURNER
v.
MARIE D. TURNER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court modified a final decree concerning child custody and property division, affirming the custody award but remanding for further consideration of the home sale and retaining jurisdiction for child support and equitable adjustments.
The court affirmed the custody award but modified the decree regarding the sale of the home, retaining jurisdiction for future adjustments. The petition for additional attorney's fees was denied.
“It is our conclusion that jurisdiction of the lower court should be retained in respect to custody of the children and their maintenance.”
Establishes the court's decision to retain jurisdiction over child custody and maintenance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final decree awarded child custody to the mother, ordered the sale of the marital home with proceeds divided, and awarded attorney's fees. The appea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The final decree appealed awarded the custody of the children to the mother. The decree also ordered the home sold and the proceeds divided. It is our conclusion that jurisdiction of the lower court should be retained in respect to custody of the children and their maintenance. We also have doubts as to the propriety of that portion of the decree ordering the home sold.
The affirmance hereof shall be without prejudice to the lower court’s retention of jurisdiction in that regard and the adjustment of the equities in event any change in custody of the children or in event of the wife’s retention of possession and use as a home for herself and the children; jurisdiction in both respects is ordered retained for the lower court.
Appellee’s counsel have petitioned for the allowance of additional counsel fees occasioned by reason of the appeal. The chancellor has been liberal in his award of fees in the first instance, the wife is not without means to pay, therefore the petition will be denied.
Affirmed as modified.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., and BARNS, Circuit Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1979)…on the circumstance that at the time of injury he was on a special errand in response to a call from his employer. The going and coming rule does not apply to employees on special errands or missions for the employer. Moody v. Baxley, 158 Fla. 357, 28 So. 2d 325 (1946). Special errands often arise in the context of an afterhours call from the employer. See Feltner v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 274 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1973). As a practical matter, the irregularity and suddenness of a call from the employer w…
-
Bruck v. Glen Johnson, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…79). However, an exception to this rule exists where the employee is instructed by the employer to perform a special errand which grows out of and is incidental to his employment. Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, supra; Moody v. Baxley, 158 Fla. 357, 28 So. 2d 325 (1946). Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the deputy erred in focusing on the employer’s intent to send only Scott Bruck on the special errand, given the uncontroverted evidence that claimant had been instructed to perform an erran…
-
Freeman v. Manpower, Inc., 453 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…on the circumstance that at the time of injury he was on a special errand in response to a call from his employer. The going and coming rule does not apply to employees on special errands or missions for the employer. Moody v. Baxley, 158 Fla. 357, 28 So. 2d 325 (1946). Special errands often arise in the context of an afterhours call from the employer. See Feltner v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 274 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1973). As a practical matter, the irregularity and suddenness of a call from the employer w…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence