BURTON GINSBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLOTTE GINSBERG, 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.
In this divorce appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's orders requiring the husband to pay temporary alimony, child support, and attorney's fees, as well as a restraining order removing him from the marital home. The court held that absent an abuse of discretion, appellate courts will not overturn a chancellor's determinations regarding temporary support and restraining orders in divorce proceedings.
The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding no abuse of discretion. The court held that awards of temporary alimony, support, and attorney's fees are within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor and will not be overturned unless an abuse of discretion is affirmatively shown. The restraining order requiring the husband's removal from the marital home was also justified pending final disposition of the case.
“An award of temporary alimony, support and attorney's fees is within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor and appellate courts are not prone to substitute their judgment as to temporary allowances for that of the chancellor unless it is affirmatively made to appear that the chancellor has abused this discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for temporary support awards—appellate courts defer to the chancellor unless discretion is clearly abused.
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 and wife were involved in a divorce action. A full hearing was held before the chancellor, with both parties testifying about the wife and…
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 Action cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal seeks review of two orders in a divorce action. One order required the appellant-husband to pay temporary alimony and support to the wife and two minor children, as well as attorney’s fees, and the other was a restraining order, which required the appellant’s .removal from the marital home and enjoined him from interfering with or molesting the appellee.
A full hearing was had before the chancellor as to the wife and children’s need for and the husband’s ability to supply temporary support pendente lite. Both parties appeared before the chancellor and testified in person, resulting in one of the orders under review.
An award of temporary alimony, support and attorney’s fees is within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor and appellate courts are not prone to substitute their judgment as to temporary allowances for that of the chancellor unless it is affirmatively made to appear that the chancellor has abused this discretion. See Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663; Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 597. In this respect, we have reviewed the testimony before the chancellor, and considered the briefs of the respective counsel as well as oral arguments before the court, and are of the view that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion.
As to the other order sought to be reviewed, the chancellor heard testimony upon the petition of the appellee for a temporary restraining order requiring the appellant to remove himself from the marital home, and we conclude, as did the chancellor, that pending a final disposition of the issues between the parties, the temporary *566restraining order was justified. No abuse of discretion in granting such order has been pointed out or been made to appear to this court, and the record before us failing to indicate such, we conclude that the order should be affirmed.
In passing, we point out that both orders sought to be reviewed here are temporary in nature and are subject to dissolution, continuance or modification by the chancellor as the facts and justice of the cause may require.
Accordingly, the orders appealed are affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Felice Ginsberg v. Goldstein, 404 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…d the cause remanded with directions to award that amount to the appellant. As to the remaining $505.38, the judgment is affirmed.7 Affirmed in part, reversed in part. . The prior appellate history of this case stretches from Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 113 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), and Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 127 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), to Goldstein v. Ginsberg, 399 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). . An initial challenge by Ginsberg to Charlotte’s right to the $505.38 difference has been withdrawn and o…
-
Burton Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 122 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
-
McKENNA v. McKENNA, 220 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…n of the evidence, and a party who challenges the correctness of such an allowance has the burden of demonstrating on the record an abuse of discretion. In our opinion abuse of discretion was not shown. See Ginsberg v. [*435] Ginsberg, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 565; Martin v. Martin, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 556; Lyons v. Lyons, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 137. With respect to the welfare of such children, for whose care and maintenance provision has been made in a divorce decree, the trial court stands in the po…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, 96 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 104 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)