Butler v. Butler, 61-258
| Decision Date | 28 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-258,61-258 |
| Citation | 132 So.2d 437 |
| Parties | Walter BUTLER, Appellant, v. Shirley Riedel BUTLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Patton & Kanner, Miami, for appellant.
Cain & Isis, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and CARROLL, JJ.
This is an appeal from a post decretal order in a divorce suit. The orders appealed are: (1) an order modifying final decree of divorce; and (2) an amended order modifying the same decree. Both orders appealed were entered as a result of the same hearing.
The appellant and the appellee entered into an extensive property settlement agreement dated April 8, 1960. A final decree of divorce was entered on May 24, 1960 and this decree 'ratified, approved and confirmed in all respects' the property settlement agreement between the parties. Thereafter on November 4, 1960 the former wife filed a motion entitled 'Petition for Interpretation of Portions of Property Settlement Agreement.' The Chancellor correctly considered this petition as a petition for modification of the final decree.
After the taking of testimony the chancellor granted the modification of the decree in certain respects. It is this order which is appealed and we reverse in part.
The agreement which was made a part of the final decree provided that the mother should have custody of the children and that the children should be raised in the Roman Catholic Church. It was also agreed that the mother would give the children a proper Roman Catholic education, if such should be reasonably available.
The father has appealed the orders modifying the final decree and assigns as error, first, that portion of the order which allows the mother to enroll certain of the children in a private, non-Catholic school, and, second, that portion of the order which requires the father to pay the additional expenses of the private school. He argues that the chancellor was without power to make the changes. This position is not well taken. Decrees pertaining to the welfare of the children are, in a sense, interlocutory and because of this they may be modified, from time to time, as the welfare of the children requires. Lee v. Lee, 157 Fla. 439, 26 So.2d 177; Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 754; Schraner v. Schraner, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 33; Johnson v. Johnson, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 338.
It is next urged that the chancellor erred because the record is devoid of a legal basis for the changes mentioned. The power of a chancellor to modify a final decree of divorce in accordance with the welfare of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sirkin v. Sirkin, 66-909
...Perla v. Perla (Fla.1952) 58 So.2d 689, 690; Sedell v. Sedell (Fla.App.1st Dist., 1958) 100 So.2d 639, 642; and Butler v. Butler (Fla.App.3rd Dist., 1961) 132 So.2d 437, 438. In Sedell, the court, while citing the Lee case with approval, wrote as 'Provisions of a separation agreement or fin......
-
Hegler v. Hegler
...interlocutory and because of this they may be modified, from time to time, as the welfare of the children requires." Butler v. Butler, 132 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).2 § 61.1304(1) and (5), Fla.Stat. (1977). See also: § 61.1308 Fla.Stat. (1977).3 § 61.1308(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1977).4 § 61.1......
-
McCown v. McCown, 4873
...is insufficient to warrant modification of an agreement which has been ratified by the court. The appellant relies on Bulter v. Butler, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 437. However, in the cited case the court refused to approve a modification because the record failed to disclose that the welfare ......
-
Bolton v. Gordon
...is not affected by the fact that the decree incorporated any stipulation of the divorced parties repecting custody. Butler v. Butler, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 437; Annot., 73 A.L.R.2d 1444. Therefore, the chancellor was not bound by the non-waiver provision in the stipulation adopted in the ......