EVELIO ROSELL, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTINA LOUIS ROSELL, 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 court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying modification of child support or in requiring each party to pay their own attorneys' fees, but modified the order to strike language that could imply a contempt finding.
Appellant appealed an order concerning child custody, modification, visitation, contempt, and child support. The appellant contended the trial court e…
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 Child Support Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal from an order on motions for custody, modification, visitation, contempt, and child support, entered by the trial court on September 28, 1977.
Appellant first contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for modification of child support. We disagree. The actions of the trial court are adequately supported by the record and appellant has failed to show any clear abuse of discretion. See, e. g., Krischer v. Krischer, 337 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Simonet v. Simonet, 279 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); and Morse v. Morse, 191 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
Appellant’s second point is that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt of court for furnishing certain medical care to the parties’ minor child. In our opinion, this contention is not supported by the record or the order appealed; the trial court did not find appellant in contempt of court. However, because the following language found in paragraph 3 on page 3 of the trial court’s order could be construed as implying such a finding, we feel that this language should be stricken from the order:
“. . . however, the court withholds adjudication and sanctions subject to Respondent in the future complying with all of the Orders of this court; . . .”
Further, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring each party to pay their own attorneys’ fees. See § 61.16, Fla.Stat. (1975).
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Simonet v. Simonet, 279 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Town OF Medley v. Caplan, 191 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Morse v. Morse, 191 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Krischer v. Krischer, 337 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)