DONALD H. NIXON, APPELLANT,

v.

MARION M. NIXON, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Hutchins v. Hutchins, 220 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
  …e more affluent than the father was held not to sustain a change of custody without a finding that the children were not presently being adequately cared for. . Belford v. Belford (1947), 159 Fla. 547, 32 So. 2d 312; Nixon v. Nixon (3d D.C.A.1968), 209 So. 2d 878; Frye v. Frye (4th D.C.A.1967), 205 So. 2d 310. . See Ritsi v. Ritsi, note 2, supra.…
• Walfish v. Walfish, 383 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
  …st interests of the children.1 The trial court, therefore, abused its discretion in ordering the change of custody. Robinson v. Robinson, 333 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Hutchins v. Hutchins, 220 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); and Nixon v. Nixon, 209 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). The order of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this decision. . The trial judge also considered comments made to him by the children during an off-the-record interv…
• Foster v. Foster, 220 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
  …o Defendant’s custody to reside with Defendant, who has now remarried, in Defendant’s home, whether it be within or without the State of Florida.” We find no showing of abuse of discretion on behalf of the Chancellor. Nixon v. Nixon, Fla.App. 1968, 209 So. 2d 878. Among the other recitations contained in the court’s order, the provision setting forth the husband’s costs is as follows: “5. That Plaintiff, shall, within ten days from date hereof, make the following payments as indicated: “(A) Pay to Defenda…