SERENA J. MONTGOMERY, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL C. MONTGOMERY, 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.
This case involves an appeal from an order denying a mother's petition to modify a previous custody order that awarded permanent custody of their teenage son to the father. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.
No, the Chancellor did not err in denying the petition for modification. The record contained ample proof to sustain the Chancellor's findings, including the child's preference.
“This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for modification of an order awarding custody of a boy approximately 15 years of age to appellee-father.”
Establishes the nature of the appeal and the parties involved.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe original Final Decree awarded custody of a 15-year-old boy to the mother, with specific visitation for the father. A subsequent 1958 order transfe…
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'S Preference In Custody Matters cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for modification of an order awarding custody of a boy approximately 15 years of age to appellee-father. The Final Decree awarded the custody of the child to appellant mother except on Sundays, Holy Days and the month of August each year when appellee-father was to have custody. Subsequently in 1958 the Chancellor entered an order transferring permanent custody to the appellee and giving appellant custody on Saturdays and during the month of August. An appeal was taken from this order and was affirmed (Fla.App., 110 So.2d 39) without prejudice to the wife to apply to the chancellor for a reconsideration. Such application was made and the Chancellor denied the modification.
There is ample proof in the record to sustain the Chancellor’s findings, including the expressed preference of the boy himself. See Epperson v. Epperson (Fla.1958) 101 So.2d 367.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., WHITE, J., and MAXWELL, OLIVER C, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville v. Norris, 368 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…misled the jury or prejudiced the bank’s right to a fair trial. We have examined all of the instructions and find that the instructions given were not prejudicial to the bank. See OWCA v. Zemzicki, 137 So. 2d 876 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Hart v. Jackson, 142 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1st DCA 1962); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nall, 302 So. 2d 781 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1977). We have considered the remaining points urged for reversal by the Appellant-Bank, but find them to be without substa…
-
Smith v. Canevary, 553 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…So. 2d 620 (Fla.1958); Florida Motor Lines v. Casad, 98 Fla. 720, 124 So. 180 (1929); Scott v. Barfield, 202 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Retty v. Troy, 188 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1967); Hart v. Jackson, 142 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); Sirmons v. Pittman, 138 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); McCollum v. Florida Power & Light Co., 125 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), cert. discharged, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1962). All of these cases, however, were decided prior to th…
-
Mary L. Retty and her husband v. Troy, 188 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…orize a finding that the injury was the result of negligence, it is error to charge the jury upon the doctrine of ‘unavoidable accident’.” * * * The majority opinion states that the holding of “harmless error” in Hart v. Jackson, (Fla.App.Ct.1962), 142 So. 2d 326, * * * “tended to neutralize or ‘water down’ any contrary intimations from certain language in the Sirmons opinion.” * * * A study of Hart does not justify the language in the majority opinion, for, while it is true that the Court did hold the giv…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Epperson v. Epperson, 101 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1958)
- Serena J. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 110 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)