R. KIRK LANDON, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET E. LANDON, 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 a former husband appealing post-decretal orders that increased child support and maintenance beyond the amount agreed upon in a divorce decree. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no reversible error.
Yes, the successor judge had the authority to modify the final divorce decree to increase child support and maintenance. The court found no reversible error in the orders entered by the chancellor.
“By this interlocutory appeal the former husband of the appellee seeks reversal of post decretal orders that increased the amount of child support and maintenance beyond that which was agreed upon by the parties and incorporated in the final decree of divorce.”
This quote establishes the nature of the appeal and the core issue of increased child support.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband appealed orders increasing child support and maintenance, arguing that a property settlement agreement incorporated into the divorc…
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 Final Decree Of Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
By this interlocutory appeal the former husband of the appellee seeks reversal of post decretal orders that increased the amount of child support and maintenance beyond that which was agreed upon by the parties and incorporated in the final decree of divorce.
The orders complained of were entered by a circuit judge who is the successor to the deceased judge who entered the original decree.
It is appellant’s contention that the property settlement agreement incorporated in the final decree of divorce precludes the plaintiff from obtaining additional support for the children at this time as the wife has a net worth of $50,000.00 and an annual income of $7,000.00. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should expend the monies obtained by her under the property settlement agreement before she can ssek monies from the defendant. It was further argued that the successor judge was without power to modify the deceased judge’s final decree. The chancellor disagreed with appellant’s contentions, and entered orders modifying the original decree by increasing the allowance for child support to meet the increased needs of the children.
We have carefully considered the points on appeal in the light of the record and the applicable principles of law. We find no reversible error, and therefore the orders appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. State, 252 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…one-half years after his plea in a case in which he was facing a capital sentence. In this connection, attention is called to Pait v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 15; Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 85; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 784; Goodall v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 263; Ersek v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So. 2d 481; O’Fallon v. State, Fla.App., 239 So. 2d 872; North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162. [*596] Wherefore, for the above reasons,…
-
Istvan J. Ersek v. State, 238 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…voluntariness of his plea; and this record demonstrates no reason to interfere with the trial judge’s order here under review. Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 85; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 245; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 784; Brumley v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 447; Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 300; Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 446; Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16; Bishop v. Sharkey, Dist.Ct. Di…