HYMAN I. FISCHBACH, APPELLANT,
v.
ELEANOR FISCHBACH, 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.
Hyman Fischbach appeals a Florida court's enforcement of a New York alimony decree issued in a separate maintenance suit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Eleanor Fischbach, establishing the New York decree locally and ordering payment of arrears and future installments. The appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error.
The trial court properly refused to order payment of amounts accruing under the New York decree between the date of that judgment and the local hearing. The court correctly established the New York decree locally and ordered $45 weekly payments going forward, while expressly reserving the defendant's right to apply for modification under Florida law.
“the chancellor properly refused to order the defendant to pay the amounts which had accrued under the New York decree between the time of the judgment there for arrears and the hearing in the local court”
Establishes that the trial court correctly limited arrears to those adjudicated in New York rather than imposing additional accrued amounts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEleanor Fischbach obtained an alimony award from a New York court in May 1956 in a separate maintenance suit. She filed a complaint in Dade County cir…
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 Enforcement Of Foreign Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
On December 3, 1957, the appellee Eleanor H. Fischbach filed a complaint in chancery in the circuit court in Dade County against the appellant Hyman I. Fischbach, seeking enforcement of past due and currently maturing alimony which had been awarded to her by a New York court in a separate maintenance suit in May of 1956.
The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the circuit court. _ The defendant answered, and filed a counterclaim which the court dismissed. The court then granted a motion of the plaintiff for summary final decree. The decree established the New York alimony decree as a decree of the local court, authorized execution of the adjudicated arrears of alimony in the sum of $1,175, directed the payment of future installments of alimony in the amount of $45 per week as provided for in the New York decree, awarded attorney’s fees and costs which were charged against the defendant, and reáerved to the defendant the right to apply for modification of the provision for payment of $45 per week. The defendant filed an interlocutory appeal (No. 58-328) from the order dismissing his counterclaim, and following final decree the defendant appealed therefrom (No. 58-461). On stipulation of the parties the two appeals were consolidated and briefed and heard together.
No useful purpose would be served by reciting the facts and background of the case as disclosed in the record, as we have concluded, following argument of counsel and consideration of the record and briefs, that the- appellant has not carried his burden of showing reversible error in the summary final decree and orders appealed from.
The chancellor properly refused to order the defendant to pay the amounts which had accrued under the New York decree between the time of the judgment there for arrears and the hearing in the local court; and while the chancellor rejected matters which defendant advanced in an effort to obtain a modification of the amount of future alimony installments, the right to apply for modification (under § 65.15, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.) was expressly reserved to the defendant in the decree. See Sackler v. Sackler, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 292; Haas v. Haas, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 640.
The decree and order appealed from should be and hereby are affirmed.
Affirmed.
HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Volpe v. Volpe, 124 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Sadder v. Sackler, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 292; Fischbach v. Fischbach, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 880. HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.…
-
Newton v. Newton, 125 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…PER CURIAM. The appellant assigns as error an order denying his motion to dismiss a complaint which seeks to enforce a judgment of a sister state for past due alimony. The order is affirmed. See Fischbach v. Fischbach, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 880; Futterman v. Gerber, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 575; Sackler v. Sackler, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 292, 18 A.L.R.2d 856. This decision should not be construed as a holding upon the propriety of a further prayer of the complaint which seeks to enforce a pen…
-
Smith v. Pearline J. Smith, 431 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…een appropriate for the trial judge to either abate proceedings on the counterclaim to modify or to dismiss it without prejudice. Sackler v. Sackler, 47 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1950); Smith v. Smith, 197 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Fischbach v. Fischbach, 112 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). It should not have been dismissed with prejudice and we therefore modify the order of dismissal by striking “with prejudice” and inserting in lieu thereof, “without prejudice”. Affirmed as modified.…