NINA M. CHERNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
RUDOLPH CHERNEY, 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.
Nina Cherney appealed a divorce decree challenging the child support award of $17.50 per week per child as inadequate. The Florida appellate court affirmed the award, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion and that appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for the trial court's on support matters.
The court affirmed the award of $17.50 per week per child, finding no abuse of discretion by the chancellor. The court held that an appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor when the record supports his findings and reveals no abuse of discretion.
“It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor. If the record supports his findings and fails to reveal any abuse of discretion, such findings should be sustained.”
Establishes the standard of review and the appellate court's limited role in reviewing discretionary child support awards.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNina and Rudolph Cherney were divorced. The chancellor awarded Nina custody of two minor children (ages 10 and 11) and ordered Rudolph to pay $17.50 p…
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 Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, who was defendant and cross-plaintiff in a divorce proceeding, appeals from a final decree wherein the chancellor dissolved the matrimonial bonds between the parties, approved certain property exchanges in lieu of periodic alimony, awarded to her the care, custody and control of the two minor children [ages 10 and 11 at the time of the final hearing], and $17.50 a week for support for each of the minor children. Upon this appeal, she urges error in the amount of the support awarded, contending that the award is inadequate and, therefore, the chancellor abused his discretion in such an allowance,
An examination of the record fails to disclose any abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor in adjudicating the amount of $17.50 per week for each of the children. It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor. If the record supports his findings and fails to reveal any abuse of discretion, such findings should be sustained. See: Northern Investment Corporation v. Coppack, 134 Fla. 168, 183 So. 635; Florida Telephone Corporation v. State, Fla.App.1959, 111 So.2d 677; Courington v. Courington, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 64.
Therefore, we affirm the award of support as made by the chancellor in his final decree. This, of course, is without *915prejudice to the appellant to petition the court, pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction over the affairs of minor children, for an increase in support for both or either of the minor children at such time as she is able to demonstrate [upon an appropriate hearing before the chancellor] that there has been a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant an adjustment in the amount awarded as support, which change in circumstances may be either an increase in the ability of the father to contribute more support for the maintenance of these children, or an additional need of the children. See: 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, etc., § 276.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Meltzer v. Meltzer, 262 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…tion of the trial judge, an appellate court is not prone to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge, unless it affirmatively appears that the trial judge abused his discretion. Gilbert v. Gilbert, supra; Cherney v. Cherney, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 914; Waller v. Waller, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 352, 353. The financial needs of the appellant and the children were thoroughly presented to the trial judge at the hearing on the petition. The ability of Dr. Meltzer to pay any reasonable sum for alimon…
-
Siegel v. Zimmerman, 319 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…irmly established that in ruling upon a motion to increase child support, the trial judge will not be reversed unless the appellate court reaches the conclusion that the ruling amounts to an abuse of discretion. See Cherney v. Cherney, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 914. We hold that the denial of the motion to increase child support amounted to an abuse of discretion in this case because it appears from the record that the court applied an inappropriate rule of law. It is apparent that the judge concluded that he…
-
Simmons v. Simmons, 192 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…s reversed and the cause remanded with directions to modify the final decree of divorce by ordering the father to pay $25.00 per week in support of his minor son. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. . Cherney v. Cherney, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 914. . See Slade v. Slade, 153 Fla. 125, 13 So. 2d 917 (1943).…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N. Inv. Corp. v. Coppock, 134 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1938)
- Fla. Tel. Corp. v. State of Fla. ex rel. Peninsular Tel. Co., 111 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Courington v. Wilton Courington, 120 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)