JOHN E. GILBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY A. GILBERT, 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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's temporary order awarding alimony, child support, and attorney's fees in a divorce case. The court found no clear abuse of discretion by the chancellor in making these temporary awards.
No, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in awarding temporary alimony, child support, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the order.
“As has been said many times, the award of alimony and support, as well as attorneys' fees, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and where such an award or awards have been attacked as an abuse of discretion, the burden of clearly showing such abuse is upon the one who complains.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing awards of alimony, support, and attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed a temporary order from the divorce proceedings that awarded alimony, child support, and attorney's fees to the wife. The husband …
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 Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant husband filed suit for divorce against the appellee wife in the court below. The chancellor entered a temporary order awarding alimony and child support, as well as attorneys’ fees, to the wife. This interlocutory appeal is from that order.
The appellant has challenged the temporary awards principally on the grounds that they are excessive and constitute an abuse of discretion by the chancellor. As has been said many times, the award of alimony and support, as well as attorneys’ fees, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and where such an award or awards have been attacked as an abuse of discretion, the burden of clearly showing such abuse is upon the one who complains. See Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 597. We are reluctant in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion by the trial judge to set aside his order and substitute our judgment for his. We cannot say in this instance with any degree of certainty that a clear showing of abuse of discretion has been made. However, it may be that upon a final hearing of this cause, when the chancellor has had an opportuni*380ty to consider all of the factual circumstances of the parties, that this, being a temporary order, may be modified as those circumstances may permit or require.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ontention is that the court erred in denying her petition for an increase in alimony. A party who challenges a child support or alimony ruling has the burden of clearly showing it represents an abuse of discretion. Gilbert v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 379; Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 137, 138, 2 A.L.R. 3d 592. Such ruling being within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge, an appellate court is not prone to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge, unless it a…
-
Deigaard v. Deigaard, 114 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…mstances of the parties, as developed by the testimony and exhibits,' the chancellor did not, in our opinion, abuse his discretion in making'the awards which he did. See Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 597; Gilbert v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 379. The second contention of the appellant we think has merit. The chancellor by his decree awarded the wife the sum of $75 per week alimony which, as we have heretofore held, was justified in view of the evidence adduced before him. However, he furth…
-
Larsen v. Larsen, 180 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…who challenges the correctness of such rulings of a chancellor has the burden of showing abuse of discretion. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 671, 672; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 663, 665; Gilbert v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 379; Dworkis v. Dworkis, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 70, 75, 72 A.L.R.2d 1189.” There was evidence both ways before the chancellor on the question of whether or not the appellee’s said testimony was false or not, but the chancellor, as the trier of the fa…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lewis v. Lewis, 104 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)