EMMA LOU BAKER, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL R. BAKER, 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.
This case involves an appeal concerning alimony and child support awards in a divorce decree. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, citing insufficient evidence of abuse of discretion and the trial court's retained jurisdiction to modify child support based on future changed circumstances.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the decree, finding sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court's findings and noting the trial court's retained jurisdiction to modify child support.
“It has long been and still is the rule that the appellate court will not interfere with the findings of fact by the trial court, if there is sufficient competent evidence to support the court's conclusions.”
Establishes the standard of review for factual findings by the trial 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 parties divorced, and the trial court awarded neither alimony nor child support, citing a paucity of combined income that was exacerbated by the d…
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 Appellate Review Of Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
The thrust of this appeal is that the trial court did not award alimony and did not award sufficient child support to be paid by the defendant-husband.
It appears that there was a paucity of combined income of the parties, which became more exaggerated in a divided family such as this.
It has long been and still is the rule that the appellate court will not interfere with the findings of fact by the trial court, if there is sufficient competent evidence to support the court’s conclusions. We adhere to that rule now and particularly so because the court retained jurisdiction of the minor child, and if it can later be shown that the award of child support should be modified, either raised or lowered, because of changed circumstances of the parties, the trial court may do so. There has not been shown such abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor to warrant this court in reversing, therefore, the decree appealed from is affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.