RUTH LEONA LOVETT, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES D. LOVETT, 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 regarding the divorce, alimony, or child support. The court also granted the appellant's attorney fees for services on appeal.
No, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in granting the divorce or in the awards for alimony and child support. Yes, attorney fees for services on appeal are granted.
“Since the appellant has failed to clearly show that the chancellor abused his discretion, the decree appealed from is affirmed.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married and had children. The husband filed for divorce, and the wife filed for separate maintenance, also challenging the adequacy o…
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 Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce, granted to the appellee-husband. Appellant contends that a divorce should not have been granted to the husband, but thát her complaint for separate maintenance should have been granted. She also challenges the adequacy of the allowance of alimony and child support. The evidence was in conflict on all of these issues. Since the appellant has failed to clearly show that the chancellor abused his discretion, the decree appealed from is affirmed. Frazier v. Frazier, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 865; Lauray v. Lauray, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 670; and Clutter v. Clutter, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 544.
The appellant’s attorney has petitioned this court for attorney fees for services rendered before this court, which we grant in the sum of Three Hundred ($300.-00) Dollars.
LILES, J., and LEAVENGOOD, C. RICHARD, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avie Lee Thornton v. Lacy Thornton, Jr., 433 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…ion 61.16 as authorizing fee awards both at trial and on appeal. Bryan v. [*684] Bryan, 342 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Sommese v. Sommese, 324 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Ruhnau v. Ruhnau, 299 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Lovett v. Lovett, 194 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The difficulty is not in ascertaining the authority for such fees, but in formulating consistent rules to govern the exercise of that authority. For example, some courts, in considering attorney’s fees for dissolution appeals, ha…
-
McPherson v. Michaela Bittner, 126 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…of section 61.16 as authorizing fee awards both at trial and on appeal. Bryan v. Bryan, 342 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Sommese v. Sommese, 324 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Ruhnau v. Ruhnau, 299 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Lovett v. Lovett, 194 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). See also Gieseke v. Gieseke, 499 So. 2d 839, 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). A well-settled maxim of statutory construction states that “ ‘the legislature is presumed to know the existing law when a statute is enacted, including judic…
Authorities Cited
- Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Lauray v. Lauray, 181 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Frazier v. Frazier, 191 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)