ROY E. MARTIN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MIRIAM HENSON MARTIN, 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 District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed a decree for alimony and child support after the Supreme Court remanded the case for consideration of the merits. The appellate court found no clear abuse of discretion by the chancellor in making the awards.
No, the awards were not excessive. The appellate court found no clear abuse of discretion by the chancellor in making the awards.
“On consideration of the arguments, briefs and record, we conclude that the appellant has not carried his burden to demonstrate clear abuse of discretion by the chancellor in making the awards.”
This quote establishes the court's conclusion regarding the excessiveness of the awards.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA wife filed suit for separate maintenance, and the trial court entered a decree for alimony and child support. The husband appealed, initially raisin…
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 Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a decree for alimony and child support entered in a suit for separate maintenance brought under § 65.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The appellant raised two questions. First, it was contended the matter was not cognizable in equity because neither party resided in Florida. The second question was: “If the court had jurisdiction, the various awards were excessive in view of the husband’s income.” When the appeal was argued we held in favor of the appellant on the jurisdictional point and reversed the decree without ruling on the second question. On certiorari, the Supreme Court quashed our decision (Martin v. Martin, Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 386), and later made provision for the other question on the appeal to be considered and disposed of by this court (Martin v. Martin, Fla.1962, 139 So.2d 406). After due notice the undisposed of question was reargued. On consideration of the arguments, briefs and record, we conclude that the appellant has not carried his burden to demonstrate clear abuse of discretion by the chancellor in making the awards. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671, 672; Astor v. Astor, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 645, 648; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663, 665.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKENNA v. McKENNA, 220 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…e 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 position of parens patriae, and retains continuing…
Authorities Cited
- Pross v. Pross, 72 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1954)
- Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, 96 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Astor v. Astor, 89 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1956)
- Champion v. Cochran, 128 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1961)
- Shell's City, Inc. v. Hanson, 139 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1962)