EVELYNE WALBORSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY M. WALBORSKY, 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 for further proceedings to determine an adequate child support award, finding the original award insufficient given the father's substantial income and the children's high standard of living.
No, the award for child support was insufficient. The court found that further testimony was needed to determine an adequate award for the children's necessaries.
“We have observed that the record leaves the impression that Appellant's father is wealthy and she has some separate property, but the primary responsibility for child support rests upon the husband.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for placing the primary burden of child support on the husband.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed a divorce decree, arguing, among other things, that the award for the support of the four minor children was insufficient. The …
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 Standard Of Living cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Evelyne Walborsky has appealed from a divorce decree. We have carefully considered all the points on appeal and find that Appellant has failed to clearly show that the chancellor made any error save with respect to the sufficiency of the award for support of the four minor children. Although the record is vague as to the sum which will be sufficient to maintain the children, it does show that the Ap-pellee’s annual income is substantial and that the children have attained a high standard of living primarily from this income. We have observed that the record leaves the impression that Appellant’s father is wealthy and she has some separate *854property, but the primary responsibility for child support rests upon the husband.
The cause is remanded for the purpose of taking further testimony as to the necessaries for the children and for an adequate award for same. Otherwise the decree is affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.