F. G. ROGERS, APPELLANT,
v.
IRMA ROGERS, APPELLEE
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 affirmed in part and reversed in part a lower court's decree regarding child support. The court found the record did not support the chancellor's finding on the amount of support ordered.
No, the record did not support the chancellor's finding on the question of support and maintenance for the child. The decree is reversed as to this issue.
“We have examined the record and do not think it supports the finding of the chancellor on the question of support and maintenance for Floyd Rogers.”
This quote explains the court's primary reason for reversing part of the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a divorce, the mother was awarded custody of the child. The father was subsequently ordered to pay child support, with the amount increasing…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Appellant and appellee as husband and wife were divorced in July 1923, one child, Floyd Rogers, having been the product of said union. In the divorce proceedings the custody of said child was awarded to the mother. In June 1924 on petition of the appellee the chancellor ordered appellant to pay $20.00 per month for the support and maintenance of said child. In July, 1927, the chancellor entered his decree requiring appellant among other things to pay $30.00 per month for the support and maintenance of said child. Appeal is taken from that decree.
We have examined the record and do not think it supports the finding of the chancellor on the question of support and maintenance for Floyd Rogers. It is therefore reversed as to this but is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. ’Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in. the opinion and judgment.