Hynes v. Hynes, 72-1437

Decision Date15 May 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72-1437,72-1437
PartiesJimmy Gail HYNES, Appellant, v. James L. HYNES, Jr., Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Milton M. Ferrell, Miami, for appellant.

Adams, George & Wood, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES A. CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-wife takes this interlocutory appeal to review an order modifying a final judgment of divorce.

On March 15, 1971, the parties were divorced and appellee-husband was ordered to pay (1) the mortgage payments on the marital residence, (2) $25 per week alimony, and (3) $25 per week child support for each of three minor children, a total of approximately $133 each week. Appellant filed a contempt notice and a hearing thereon was held on May 23, 1972. Appellee-husband appeared without counsel. The court found the appellee-husband to be $4,100 in arrears as of May 19, 1972, but reserved entering its order thereupon. Thereafter, on June 1, 1972, appellee, having employed counsel, filed a Petition for Modification of Final Judgment of Divorce. A hearing was held on this petition on June 8, 1972. Immediately thereafter, the court signed its order on the notice of contempt previously heard on Mary 23, 1972. This order of June 8, 1972 found appellee-husband to be delinquent in his payments in the sum of $4,100. Nevertheless, the court advised it intended to rehear the matter. Thereafter, appellee filed a petition for rehearing or in the alternative for modification of final judgment of divorce and court order of June 8, 1972. On October 12, 1972 a hearing was held on appellee's petition. The record, however, does not reflect any testimony contesting the accuracy of the court's order of June 8, 1972 in finding the appellee to be delinquent in his payments as of May 19, 1972 in the sum of $4,100. Subsequently, on November 6, 1972 the court entered an order setting aside its order of June 8, 1972 and modifying the final judgment of divorce which reads in part as follows:

'4. The Court finds and adjudges that the Defendant, JAMES E. HYNES, JR., is presently in arrears for Alimony and child support in the sum of $2,100.00 and he is hereby ordered to pay said amount to the Plaintiff, JIMMY GAIL HYNES by way of consecutive monthly installments of $35.00, commencing the date of this order. Said payments are construed to be and shall constitute rehabilitative alimony as well as payment and satisfaction of arrearages.

'5. Further, the said Defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the Plaintiff, the sum of $215.00 per month for the maintenance and support of the three (3) minor children of the parties until death,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Powell v. Smith, 86-1240
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1986
    ...the appellant in this court. Reversed and remanded with directions. 1 Teta v. Teta, 297 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Hynes v. Hynes, 277 So.2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Petrucci v. Petrucci, 252 So.2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA ...
  • Smithwick v. Smithwick, 76--267
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 1977
    ...as the trial court may determine to be appropriate or necessary. Feder v. Feder, 291 So.2d 641 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Hynes v. Hynes, 277 So.2d 557 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Petrucci v. Petrucci, 252 So.2d 867 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). In his brief Ollie takes no issue with this statement of the law, but con......
  • Ames v. Ames
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 1982
    ...in such a manner as to affect or cancel past due installments. Benson v. Benson, 369 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Hynes v. Hynes, 277 So.2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The Florida Court of Appeals has specifically "The right of a wife to payment of alimony and child support in arrears is veste......
  • Teta v. Teta
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 1974
    ...v. Gottesman, 220 So.2d 640 (Fla.App.3rd, 1969); Petrucci v. Petrucci, 252 So.2d 867 (Fla.App.3rd, 1971); and Hynes v. Hynes, 277 So.2d 557 (Fla.App.3rd, 1973). We recognize that in some cases there may be extraordinary facts (such as laches or estoppel, waiver, reprehensible conduct on the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT