JOSEPH FARR, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTINE FARR, 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, finding no abuse of discretion by the chancellor in setting alimony, child support, and attorney's fees, despite the husband's claims of financial inability to pay.
No, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion. The appellate court found no clear showing that the order was without substantial evidentiary basis.
“DID THE CHANCELLOR ABUSE HIS DISCRETION IN THE SETTING OF THE AMOUNTS OF PERMANENT ALIMONY, CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE FINAL DECREE WHERE THERE WAS A CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENTS.”
This quote states the legal question presented to the appellate court.
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, Joseph Farr, appealed a divorce decree granted to his wife, Christine Farr. The decree awarded the wife custody of two children, possessi…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Joseph Farr, was the defendant in a suit for divorce brought by his wife, Christine Farr. The wife was granted the divorce, custody of two children, and possession of the homestead. The husband was required to make monthly mortgage payments of $83.50 per month, plus utility payments of $18.00 per month. In addition, the wife was awarded the sum of $32.50 a week which was divided as follows: $10.00 as alimón}^, $11.25 for support money for each of the two minor children.
Joseph Farr appeals and presents one question for our consideration. It is as follows:
“DID THE CHANCELLOR ABUSE HIS DISCRETION IN THE SETTING OF THE AMOUNTS OF PERMANENT ALIMONY, CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE FINAL DECREE WHERE THERE WAS A CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENTS.”
In this difficult area the rule is that the appellate court will not reverse an order made in the exercise of the chancellor’s jurisdiction unless it clearly appears that the order is without substantial evidentiary basis. Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 456. Such an abuse of discretion has not been shown in this case on appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper v. Cooper, 260 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…d of $25.00 per week per child, even though it appears minuscule; but we do not find that the chancellor committed any abuse of discretion under the evidence in fixing same. Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 456; Farr v. Farr, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 890. Of course, this award is subject to continuous review by the court pursuant to § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We conclude that the chancellor erred in requiring the appellant to make the mortgage payments in their entirety. Therefore, except as herein…
-
Angelika Y. Lasseter v. Lasseter, 241 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…for permanent alimony. We have reviewed the record and find that in each instance the appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion vested in the trial judge. Beaty v. Beaty, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 54; Cf. Farr v. Farr, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 890. Affirmed.…
-
Hudson v. Hudson, 226 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…d attorney’s fees to the wife and there being no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in regard to these items, they will not be disturbed on appeal. Bencomo v. Bencomo, Fla.App. [*697] 1967, 195 So. 2d 874; Farr v. Farr, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 890. Affirmed. CROSS, C. J., and OWEN, J., and Mac-MILLAN, HUGH, Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rogoff v. Rogoff, 115 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)