SYLVIA GAIL HOWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
CLIFTON L. HOWELL, JR., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Custody Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order modifying a final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties. The order of modification changed child custody as to one child, Lisa, and increased support payments to the child remaining in her mother’s custody.
Subsequent to the filing of this appeal by the mother, the father returned Lisa to her mother’s custody and resumed payment of child support, as provided in the final judgment of dissolution, at the premodifi-cation rate. The record here discloses that appellee has indicated in an affidavit, as well as in his brief, that he is desirous of a return to the status quo as it existed prior to the entry of the order of modification. In view of the appellee’s position, the only issue raised on appeal which need be decided relates to the adequacy of the fee awarded appellant’s attorney for his services in the trial court. On this point we decline to disturb the amount of the award
The cause is hereby remanded for the entry of an order placing custody of the child back in the mother and re-establishing the child support payments at the rate which was in effect prior to these modification proceedings.
MANN, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…and considered when the original judgment or agreement was entered. E. g., Withers v. Withers, 390 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Coe v. Coe, 352 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Ashbum v. Ashburn, 350 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Howell v. Howell, 301 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Waller v. Waller, 212 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, 178 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). The reason for this doctrine is an obvious one: if the likelihood of a particular occurrence was one of the factors w…
-
Ludmila R. Ashburn v. Ashburn, 350 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…his was upon appellee. We think he has not carried it. From reading the provisions of the final judgment the parties were well aware, as was the trial court, that the sale of the marital home was contemplated after January 1976. In Howell v. Howell, 301 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) we held that a change of circumstances, that is receipt of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home, is not a substantial change if it had been contemplated in the final judgment. Therefore, the order appealed is modified [*…
-
Tinsley v. Lowell Andrew Tinsley, 502 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…heavier than usual burden of proof. Floyd v. Floyd, 393 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Coe v. Coe, 352 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Tsavaris v. Tsavaris, 307 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 322 So. 2d 914 (Fla.1975); Howell v. Howell, 301 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). The husband has not carried his heavy burden in this case. Ordinarily, the purposes to which the spouse puts the alimony award generally do not support a modification of the award. Our supreme court has held that a wife’s extrava…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence