FLORENCE RIESNER
v.
LEO RIESNER
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.
Florence Riesner appealed the chancellor's reduction of weekly child support payments from $50 to $35 per week for their adopted son David. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the reduction, finding no abuse of discretion despite evidence that Leo Riesner had manipulated his financial status and had previously admitted ability to pay $40 per week.
The court affirmed the reduction, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion. The court found that no error was shown in the record and that the presumption of correctness applies to the chancellor's challenged rulings.
“Minor children are wards of the court and the law grants broad discretion in making orders affecting their welfare.”
Establishes the legal standard that courts have broad discretion in child support and custody matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeo Riesner and Florence Riesner were divorced, with Florence awarded custody of their adopted minor child David Riesner. The original divorce decree …
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 Presumption Of Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The sole question presented by this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the rulings of the chancellor below when entering orders dated January 14, 1942, and December 6, 1941, the terms of which reduced the amount of the monthly allowance •from the sum of $50.00 per week to the sum of $35.00 per week to be paid by Leo Riesner to David Riesner, a minor, the adopted child of Leo Riesner and Florence Riesner, the custody of whom, by a previous order, had been awarded to Florence Riesner simultaneously with the granting of a divorce, and the weekly payments were made to her under the terms of the decree. The case comes here for the third time. See Riesner v. Riesner, 129 Fla. 762, 176 So. 765; Riesner v. Riesner,. 136 Fla. 129, 186 So. 669.
Hearings were had before the chancellor on a rule to show cause and testimony of the parties was taken, and after hearing all the testimony it was the conclusion of the chancellor that because of financial reverses of Leo Riesner the weekly payments should be reduced. It is true and the record reflects evidence to the effect that Leo Riesner’s property holdings had been altered or changed for the purpose of presenting to the Court the favorable results of the alleged change of Riesner’s financial status. In a previous pleading filed in the case supra by him it was admitted *10he could and was financially able to pay $40.00 per week. Minor children are wards of the court and the law grants broad discretion in making orders affecting their welfare. It has not been shown that the challenged orders are erroneous or that the chancellor abused his discretion. Cases on appeal to this court, come here, with the presumption of correctness as to the rulings challenged. We fail to find error in the record.
Affirmed.
BROWN, C. J., and TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diaco v. Diaco, 363 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…dification. Lamar v. Lamar, 266 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Relief in the form of modification rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, which will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. Riesner v. Riesner, 151 Fla. 8, 9 So. 2d 108 (1942). It is not the function of this court in reviewing the order before us to re-evaluate the testimony presented to the trial judge or to now substitute our judgment for his. The trial judge weighed all of the evidence after observ…
Authorities Cited
- Ringling v. North, 129 Fla. 710 (Fla. 1937)
- Riesner v. Riesner, 129 Fla. 762 (Fla. 1937)
- Riesner v. Riesner, 136 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1939)