Nahoom v. Nahoom, s. 75--1835

Decision Date04 January 1977
Docket Number75--1836,Nos. 75--1835,s. 75--1835
Citation341 So.2d 257
PartiesKaren C. NAHOOM, Appellant, v. Kerry J. NAHOOM, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Rosenberg, Rosenberg, Reisman & Glass, Miami, for appellant.

Druck, Grimmett, Norman, Weaver & Scherer, Fort Lauderdale, Harold F. Keefe, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By these appeals, the former wife of the appellee raises the question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction to change the provisions of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage after the judgment has become final.

On August 1, 1975, the trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which provided, in part, as follows:

'4. Respondent, KERRY J. NAHOOM, shall pay to Petitioner the sum of SIXTY ($60.00) DOLLARS per week per child solely for child support of the children, which weekly payments shall commence on August 1, 1975, and continue weekly thereafter until the children reach their majority or the award of child support is modified.

'In addition, during the period from June through August, in the years 1976 and 1977, the Respondent shall pay to Petitioner as and for additional child support the sum of TWO HUNDRED ($200.00) DOLLARS each year.

'5. The Court makes no award of alimony for the Petitioner.

'6. The Court retains jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of enforcing the terms and conditions of this Final Judgment, and further retains jurisdiction for any and all further proceedings that may be meet and proper.'

This judgment was pursuant to an oral announcement made at the conclusion of the cause where the court stated, in part, as follows:

'THE COURT: Here is what I am goiong to do, based on conversations with the parties and based upon stipulations: The child support will be $60 a week, per child, until the children reach their majority. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this case for any future hearings, naturally, and for the next two years exclusive of the year 1975, but for 1976 and 1977, during the month of June, July, and August, for the care of these children, the additional day care or babysitting care of these children, while she is working, will be an additional $200 due and owing to Mrs. Nahoom for the benefit of those children. That will be the initial child support as awarded by the Court. It will cease at the end of the summer of 1977. By that time you ought to be on your feet. All right, gentlemen, does that determine all the issues that we have involved here?'

On September 15, 1975, a motion to amend a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Harrell v. Harrell, 86-2642
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 10 Noviembre 1987
    ...should not have modified the payment terms, even though the order may have more fully expressed the court's intentions. Nahoom v. Nahoom, 341 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); accord Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); McEachin v. McEachin, 154 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); se......
  • Migliore v. Migliore, s. 97-1521
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 26 Agosto 1998
    ...Inc. v. Swanko, 419 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); St. Cloud Utils. v. Moore, 410 So.2d 973 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Nahoom v. Nahoom, 341 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and Bescar Enters., Inc. v. Rotenberger, 221 So.2d 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)(In none of these cases did the use of the word ......
  • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Walker, 81-64
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 28 Julio 1981
    ...Kippy Corp. v. Colburn, 177 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1965); In re Estate of Beeman, 391 So.2d 276, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Nahoom v. Nahoom, 341 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We hold that it was. 4 As the familiar rule was succinctly stated in Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So.2d 800 (Fla.1954), "the test o......
  • Travel Is Fun, Inc. v. Hartnett, 77-2381
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 21 Marzo 1978
    ...requirements of law in affirming this order on appeal. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970); Nahoom v. Nahoom, 341 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Administration, 315 So.2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Investment Corp. of South Flor......
  • 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