Morrison v. Morrison, C-76
| Decision Date | 14 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. C-76,C-76 |
| Parties | Maxine U. MORRISON, Appellant, v. Michael J. MORRISON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Raymond, Wilson, Karl & Fink, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Ossinsky & Krol, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This appeal is from a post decretal order entered in a contempt proceeding by which the chancellor purported to interpret the child support provisions of a final decree of divorce, and upon such interpretation absolved defendant father of contempt.
The Circuit Court of Volusia County entered a final decree of divorce in accordance with a settlement agreement between the parties, which, among other things, provided that custody of the two minor children of the parties be awarded to appellant mother, and required appellee father to pay to the mother on 'Friday of each and every week' the sum of $20 as support for each of the children. The decree further provided that the father should have the right to visit the children by appointment and to have their custody for one month each year during summer vacation. Accordingly, custody was delivered to him for periods of one month each in the summers of 1958 and 1959. During these two months he failed to pay to the mother the mentioned sum of $40 per week as specified by the decree, and the mother procured a rule nisi against the father requiring him to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt for failure to make said payments.
To the rule to show cause the father filed an answer in which he admitted the allegations of the motion, but contended that under the terms and provisions of the final decree he was not required to pay the mother support for the children during the summer vacations when they were in his custody and control. The answer prayed for the entry of an order interpreting the final decree as relieving the father from payment of child support during the one-month summer vacation when he shall have the temporary custody of the minor children as provided in the original decree.
The parties to the cause entered into a stipulation of facts essentially in accordance with those hereinabove stated. No further testimony or proof was required by the court nor adduced by the parties. Upon final hearing the chancellor entered an order which decreed that during the one-month summer vacation when the minor children of the parties are in the care and custody of the father he shall be relieved from paying support money in the sum of $40 each week to the wife. The order further provides that the court's interpretation of the final decree as set forth therein shall be applied to any future payments by the father under and pursuant to the terms of the final decree, and to that extent the decree is thereby interpreted. The father was absolved of contempt and the rule discharged.
The mother has appealed from the mentioned order which purports to interpret the final decree theretofore entered by the court. It is contended that the terms and provisions of the decree are clear and unambiguous and require the payment of child support by the father to the mother on Friday of each week during the minority of the children, and that the decree contains no exception or reservations whereby the father may be relieved of such payments during the summer vacation month when he has custody of the children. Under these circumstances appellant contends that the chancellor was without authority in this proceeding to interpret the decree in such way as to amount to a modification or rewriting of the terms and provisions thereof.
We have carefully examined the final decree originally entered by the court and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baures v. Baures
...119 S.E.2d 341 (1961); Koon v. Koon, 50 Wash.2d 577, 313 P.2d 369 (1957); Tucker v. Tucker, 398 S.W.2d 238 (Ky.1966); Morrison v. Morrison, 122 So.2d 199 (Fla.App.1960); Stafford v. Stafford, 27 Misc.2d 9, 203 N.Y.S.2d 935 (1960); Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 222 La. 597, 63 So.2d 11 A father ......
-
Coffman v. Hayes
...situations where the children were with the husband only for a visit, and oftentimes pursuant to the terms of a decree. Morrison v. Morrison, 122 So.2d 199 (Fla.App.1960); Markham v. Markham, 300 S.W.2d 370 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Brummer v. Brummer, 6 N.J.Super. 401, 69 A.2d 38 (1949). The pri......
-
Aston's Trust, In re
...of law and such mistakes cannot be corrected under Rule 1.540, F.R.C.P. and after the expiration of the appeal period. Morrison v. Morrison, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 199; Constant v. Tillitson, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 91; Lehman v. Spencer Ladd's, Inc., Fla.1965, 182 So.2d 402; Meadows v. Co......
-
Hurst v. Hampton, 71--827
...Fla. 442, 182 So. 762; Petrucci v. Petrucci, Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 867; Boyle v. Boyle, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 64; Morrison v. Morrison, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 199. On the other hand, there may be such extraordinary facts constituting an avoidance such as laches or estoppel as would per......