THERESA M. ROGERS, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES R. ROGERS, 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 reversed a lower court's order that modified a final divorce decree. The court held that once a final decree fixing property rights is entered, it cannot be modified unless jurisdiction is retained or the modification is related to enforcement.
No, the chancellor did not have the authority to modify the final decree. Property rights fixed by a final decree are not subject to modification by the chancellor unless jurisdiction is retained or the modification is related to enforcement.
“The property rights became fixed by the final decree and were not subject to modification by the chancellor except upon a timely petition for rehearing.”
Establishes the principle that final decrees fixing property rights are generally not modifiable.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA 1960 final divorce decree awarded a former wife possession of the marital home, shared equally with the former husband, and required her to pay taxe…
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 Modification Of Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
On November 30, 1964, the chancellor entered an order modifying a final decree entered in September, 1960, upon motion made by the former husband, whereupon the former wife entered this appeal. We find error and reverse.
By the 1960 final decree, the parties were decreed to hold the home place share and share alike, and possession was awarded the wife, which wife was required to pay all taxes. The decree was complete and jurisdiction was not retained for any purpose. The property rights became fixed by the final decree and were not subject to modification by the chancellor except upon a timely petition for rehearing. Strozier v. Strozier, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 134; Batteiger v. Batteiger, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 602. The chancellor may have jurisdiction to enforce the decree, but not to modify it when the modification is unrelated to the enforcement.
The decree appealed is reversed, and appellant’s application for an award of attorney’s fees is denied.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS, J., con- ' cur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joyner v. Rogers, 182 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…f a divorce, the appellant Theresa M. Rogers Joyner, and the appellee, James R. Rogers, became tenants in common of a home place, share and share alike, and possession was awarded to the wife by the final decree. See Rogers v. Rogers, Fla. App.1965, 175 So. 2d 232. This appeal is from a final decree of partition entered December 3, 1964, and the assignments of error are based on a post decretal order of January 22, 1965, providing for the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the property made pursuant…
-
Clem v. Clem, 183 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…ee: Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So. 2d 423; Morrison v. Morrison, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 199; McEachin v. McEachin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 894; Augusta Corporation v. Strawn, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 621; Rogers v. Rogers, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 232, 233. The appellee responds that the net result of the order here under review, notwithstanding any labels, was not to modify nor change but was merely to enforce the provisions for payment of the lump sum alimony provided for therein, and relies up…
Authorities Cited
- Batteiger v. Batteiger, 109 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Deauville Realty Co., Inc. v. Tobin, 109 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Earle S. Leggett and T. U. Graff, 107 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Strozier v. Strozier, 107 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)