JOHN BANNER GORDON GASTER
v.
KELLIE MAE GASTER
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree but modified the custody and support provisions, allowing the mother to seek further relief from the lower court. The court found no grounds to reverse the divorce itself but recognized the mother's entitlement to a more favorable arrangement regarding their child.
The court affirmed the divorce decree, finding no error in its granting. It also affirmed the custody award to the father but without prejudice to the mother to seek further orders from the chancellor regarding the child's custody, support, and education, recognizing her entitlement to such relief.
“We have searched the record diligently but find no reason to reverse that part of the decree granting the divorce. We find ample reason to affirm it.”
Establishes the court's affirmation of the divorce decree.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Circuit Court initially denied a divorce and custody to the plaintiff mother. Upon rehearing, the court granted the divorce but awarded custody to…
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 Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
On June 4, 1943, the Circuit Court of Highlands County entered a final decree denying the plaintiff a divorce, the custody of her minor child and dismissed her bill of complaint. On June 16, a petition for rehearing was granted, the final decree was set aside, the plaintiff’s prayer for divorce was granted and the custody of the minor child was again granted to the defendant but the chancellor retained jurisdiction of the cause to consider further the question of custody of the minor child and the duty of the parties hereto for his support, education, and welfare.
The defendant appeals from that part of the latter decree granting the divorce and the plaintiff brings a cross appeal from that part granting the custody of the minor child to the defendant.
We have searched the record diligently but find no reason to reverse that part of the decree granting the divorce. We find ample reason to affirm it. As to the cross appeal, the judgment is also affirmed but without prejudice to appellee to apply to the chancellor for an order more liberal to her affecting the custody, support, and education of the child. *63The record shows that she is entitled to such decree. Pittman v. Pittman, 153 Fla. 434, 14 So. (2nd) 671.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.