ALFRED THOMAS SUTTER, APPELLANT,
v.
GWENDOLYN CAROL SUTTER, 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.
In this divorce appeal, a husband challenges a final decree that granted his wife a divorce, alimony, child support, and use of the marital home, as well as restrictions on his visitation rights with the children. The Florida appellate court affirmed the decree, rejecting the husband's claims that the financial provisions were unsupported and that a prohibition on taking the children in non-commercial aircraft was an unwarranted restriction on his custody rights.
The court affirmed the decree on both points, holding that (1) the appellant failed to demonstrate that the financial provisions constitute an abuse of discretion, as he had a full opportunity to present evidence at trial and an appeal is not the appropriate remedy for his failure to adequately present evidence; and (2) the restriction on air travel is supported by the dangers incident to non-commercial flights and serves the chancellor's concern for the welfare of the children.
“An appeal is not an appropriate remedy to rectify the appellant's failure to adequately present evidence at trial.”
Establishes that a party cannot use an appeal to correct their own failure to present sufficient evidence during trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married with minor children. A final decree of divorce was entered granting the wife (appellee) a divorce, alimony, and child support…
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 Welfare cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, husband, appeals a final decree granting the appellee a divorce, alimony and child support In addition, the decree provided that the appellee and the children have the use of the jointly owned home. There were other provisions of the •decree but the only other part of the decree sought to be reviewed is as follows:
“In connection with the above described visitation rights and privileges, the defendant shall not take the minor children in an airplane other than a certified carrier * *
The points raised on this appeal urge ■error in that: (1) the financial provisions of the decree are an abuse of discretion -because appellant’s ability to pay was not proved; (2) the quoted prohibition as to air travel is an unwarranted restriction upon the father’s custody and not supported by the record.
Under appellant’s first point it is argued that the record does not establish an income of more than his basic pay. He urges that the cause should be remanded to the lower court so that he can submit additional proof. We hold that appellant had a full opportunity to present his evidence. An appeal is not an appropriate remedy to rectify the appellant’s failure to adequately present evidence at trial. Our conclusion is that the appellant has not demonstrated that the financial provisions of the final decree are an abuse- of discretion. Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 456.
Appellant’s second point presents .an attractive proposition. He is a qualified aviator but not for a certified public carrier. It may well be that both he and his children would enjoy trips in a private plane piloted 'by the father. However, we must bear in mind that the question here is not whether we approve of the restriction on this type of activity but whether the restriction has a reasonable basis in the record grounded upon the chancellor’s concern for the welfare of the children. We hold the general restriction is supported by the dangers incident to the type of flights suggested here. We are certain the chancellor spent many hours on this case, both in an attempt at reconciliation and upon the merits. The chancellor may be relied upon in the future to carefully consider any petition to allow particular trips which are proved to be in accordance with the reasonable welfare of the children.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Preston v. Preston, 216 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…of the jointly owned former marital residence to the wife as an incident to the trial judge’s power to award alimony and child support. See cases cited in Berger v. Berger, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 279, 280. See also Sutter v. Sutter, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 910. Section 61.08, Fla.Stat. (1967), F.S.A. (§ 65.08, Fla.Stat. [1965] F.S.A.), authorizes the chancellor to award the former matrimonial residence to the wife. See Kilian v. Kilian, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 201. Whether to make such an award is a matte…
-
Valenti v. Elser, 660 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…13 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1988); Klondike, Inc. v. Blair, 211 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Cooley v. Rahilly, 200 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), cert. denied, 207 So. 2d 690 (Fla.1967); Sutter v. Sutter, 172 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).…
Authorities Cited
- Rogoff v. Rogoff, 115 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)