Gilbert v. Gilbert, 58-324
| Decision Date | 30 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-324,58-324 |
| Citation | 105 So.2d 379 |
| Parties | John E. GILBERT, Appellant, v. Betty A. GILBERT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Smith & Carter, Miami, for appellant.
Rothenberg & Burris and I. Eric Leef, Miami Beach, for appellee.
The appellant husband filed suit for divorce against the appellee wife in the court below. The chancellor entered a temporary order awarding alimony and child support, as well as attorney's fees, to the wife. This interlocutory appeal is from that order.
The appellant has challenged the temporary awards principally on the grounds that they are excessive and constitute an abuse of discretion by the chancellor. As has been said many times, the award of alimony and support, as well as attorneys' fees, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and where such an award or awards have been attacked as an abuse of discretion, the burden of clearly showing such abuse is upon the one who complains. See Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 597. We are reluctant in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion by the trial judge to set aside his order and substitute our judgment for his. We cannot say in this instance with any degree of certainty that a clear showing of abuse of discretion has been made. However, it may be that upon a final hearing of this cause, when the chancellor has had an opportunity to consider all of the factual circumstances of the parties, that this, being a temporary order, may be modified as those circumstances may permit or require.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nadiak v. Nadiak, 64-586
...of discretion. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671, 672; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663, 665; Gilbert v. Gilbert, Fla .App.1958, 105 So.2d 379; Dworkis v. Dworkis, Fla.App.1959, 111 So.2d 70, 75, 72 A.L.R.2d No useful purpose would be served by dealing at length wit......
-
Larsen v. Larsen, G-159
...of discretion. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671, 672; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663, 665; Gilbert v. Gilbert Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 379; Dworkis v. Dworkis, Fla.App.1959, 111 So.2d 70, 75, 72 A.L.R.2d There was evidence both was before the chancellor on the que......
-
Deigaard v. Deigaard, s. 59-46
...in our opinion, abuse his discretion in making the awards which he did. See Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 597; Gilbert v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 379. The second contention of the appellant we think has merit. The chancellor by his decree awarded the wife the sum of $75 p......
-
Saenz v. Saenz, 91-3055
...on the basis of the record which is then presented. Pearson v. Caudle, 593 So.2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Gilbert v. Gilbert, 105 So.2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).On that basis, the record at most shows that (a) the father has perhaps imprudently discussed the issues in this case with the child......