DANIEL DICKSON WILHELM, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH ANN WILHELM, 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 appellate court affirmed a divorce decree but remanded the case to require the lower court to specify separate amounts for alimony and child support, rather than a lump sum. The court found no abuse of discretion in the total amount awarded but agreed with the appellant that the decree should be more specific.
The court held that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in the total amount awarded for alimony and child support. However, the court agreed that the appellant is entitled to have the decree specify separate amounts for alimony and child support.
“Although we cannot say that the chancellor abused his discretion in the amount allowed in view of the conditions under which the award was rendered, we comment that in thus holding, we do so without prejudice to the appellant to petition under appropriate circumstances for a reduction in the event he bona fide cannot meet the required award.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the total amount awarded was not an abuse of discretion, while leaving open the possibility for future modification.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee wife was granted a divorce and custody of the parties' child. The appellant husband appealed, not contesting the divorce or custody, but …
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 Support cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee wife was granted a decree of divorce and custody of the child of the parties, a boy about eight years of age, with reasonable rights of visitation being accorded to the husband. The appeal, brought by the appellant husband, does not concern the decree of divorce nor the custodial rights; but that which is complained of is asserted abuse by the chancellor of his judicial discretion in the award of $50 weekly which he made for alimony and child support, together with his failure to have allocated specific sums, respectively, for the wife’s alimony and for the child’s support instead of lumping these together in one single sum.
Although we cannot say that the chancellor abused his discretion in the amount allowed in view of the conditions under which the award was rendered, we comment that in thus holding, we do so without prejudice to the appellant to petition under appropriate circumstances for a reduction in the event he bona fide cannot meet the required award. We agree, however, with the position of appellant, since *590he raises the question, that he is entitled to have the court specify separately the amount of the alimony for the wife and the sum for child support. See Hardy v. Hardy, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 106.
The cause is remanded to amend the final decree in conformity to this opinion.
Affirmed with directions.
SHANNON, C. J., and KANNER and ALLEN, TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bush v. Bush, 188 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…llor’s determination that the appellant is “able” to pay these minimal allowances for child support and alimony. See Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 456, 458; Klein v. Klein, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 205; Wilhelm v. Wilhelm, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 589. Affirmed.…
-
Ecklund v. Ecklund, 253 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. The petition for rehearing in this case is hereby granted. On authority of Zalka v. Zalka, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 157; Sheppard v. Sheppard, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 505; Wilhelm v. Wilhelm, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 589; Hardy v. Hardy, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 106; and Katiba v. Katiba, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 693, the cause is remanded to the trial court below with directions that the final judgment awarding defendant a lump monetary sum per week should be modif…
Authorities Cited
- Hardy v. Hardy, 118 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)