THOMAS E. BARWICK, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA J. BARWICK, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The order appealed from is supported by the record in every respect except that it provides that Mr. Barwick “should continue to pay $90.00 per week alimony . . . .” The record discloses a reduction in alimony, on appellant’s application after suffering financial reverses, to $50.00 per week until the loan on an automobile was paid, and thereafter at the rate of $70.00 per week. No application for increase was pending at the time of the order appealed from, and the figure of $90.00 per week was incorporated erroneously. That was the original amount agreed upon by the parties and incorporated in the final judgment, but was superseded by later modification. Accordingly, the order appealed from is
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
PIERCE, C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucas v. Bd. OF Real Est., 401 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ly be said that the twenty-two day delay in rendering the final order caused any impairment. The determinative question, therefore, is whether the final order is supported by competent substantial evidence. Davis v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 263 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972). After careful consideration of the record and appellant’s brief, we hold that the Commission’s final order is not supported by substantial competent evidence and the Commission erred in rejecting the hearing officer’s conclusion…