DOROTHY SWAN CASTOR, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID FREDERICK CASTOR, 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 dissolution of marriage judgment awarding alimony and child support, holding that the trial judge's discretionary determination is not subject to appellate reversal absent abuse of discretion.
A trial judge's discretionary award of alimony and child support in a dissolution of marriage case will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, even if the appellate court might have awarded a different amount.
[1] A trial court's discretionary determination of alimony and child support amounts in a dissolution of marriage will not be reversed on appeal if substantial competent evid…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorothy Swan Castor appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage that provided for both alimony and child support payments to be made by David…
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 Standard Of Review On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Appellant contends that the final judgment which provided for both alimony and child support did not require the parties to equally share the burdens of dissolution, citing Thigpen v. Thigpen, Fla.App. 1st 1973, 277 So. 2d 583; Fitzwater v. Fitzwater, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 296 So. 2d 74 and numerous other cases of like holdings. Our review of the record, however, reveals that this is a typical dissolution of marriage case with all of the attendant problems and conflicts. The amount to be awarded as alimony or child support is seldom subject to mathematical certainty. Broad discretion must be vested in the trial judge, who hears the evidence “alive”, observes the witnesses and their demeanor and then attempts to arrive at an equitable decision, which is often satisfactory to neither party. In the case sub judice, where the evidence was extensive and conflicting, were we to reverse as to the amount of either alimony or child support, which are the only points urged by appellant, we would merely be “second-guessing” the learned and experienced trial judge. This we are not permitted so to do. Although the appellant’s view of the evidence would certainly support a more generous award, there is substantial competent evidence to support the amount required to be paid by the final judgment here appealed. Accordingly, the same is
Affirmed.
MILLS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Manly W. Thigpen v. Thigpen, 277 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Fitzwater v. Waltraud U. Fitzwater, 296 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)