JEWELL C. CURTIS, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH A. CURTIS, 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 the trial court's temporary custody award to the father and denial of the mother's special equity claim, finding no abuse of discretion.
Following a divorce, the trial court awarded temporary custody of the parties' minor children to the father and denied the mother a special equity in …
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 Special Equity In Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant and appellee were divorced in the Circuit Court for Polk County. Temporary custody of the three minor children of the parties was awarded to Mr. Curtis, and Mrs. Curtis was denied any special equity in Mr. Curtis’ property. Mrs. Curtis appeals from the order awarding custody and denying her a special equity, and Mr. Curtis cross-appeals from the ruling ordering him to pay attorneys’ fees, alleging the fees are excessive.
We recognize the general rule in Florida that the mother is normally preferred as custodian of young children. Kelly v. Kelly, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 498. However, this does not mean that the mother is always awarded custody. When, as in this case, the chancellor after hearing the evidence awards custody to the father, and the record supports that decision, this court will not interfere. We note that this is a temporary custody order and therefore subject to modification at a later date.
As to the remaining points on appeal, the record shows that Mrs. Curtis failed to demonstrate a special equity in Mr. Curtis’ property, and the attorneys’ fees while high are not excessive.
The chancellor did not abuse his discretion in this case, and the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 309 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975)…ch should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse, the writ of certiorari heretofore entered is hereby Discharged. It is so ordered. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, Mc-CAIN and OVERTON, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents. . Curtis v. Curtis, 248 So. 2d 204 (Fla.App. 2d 1971) ; Edison v. Edison, 230 So. 2d 184 (Fla.App. 1st 1970) ; Pacheco v. Pacheco, 246 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1971) ; Green v. Green, 254 So. 2d 860 (Fla.App. 1st 1971). . Goodman v. Goodman, 291 So. 2d 106 (Fla.App. 3d 1974). . Posner v. Po…
Authorities Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 163 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)