Ash v. Ash

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ash v. Ash

193 So. 2d 677, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5183

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1967

DocketNo. 66-1000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 193 So. 2d 677 (Ash v. Ash) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ash v. Ash, 193 So. 2d 677, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5183 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals a post final decree order which terminated an allowance in the final decree. The property and the financial section of the final decree were based upon an agreement' between the parties. Subsequent to the final decree, the parties amended certain provisions by a further agreement. The former husband filed a petition for modification or construction of the agreement between the parties. The court found for the petitioner and terminated an allowance of $150.00 a month for housing for the former wife, who has remarried, and minor child. The basis for the ruling was a construction of the subsequent agreement so that a provision of the final decree, providing for termination of the payment upon remarriage of the former wife, was carried forward and included in the amendment.

The language of the agreement clearly supports the conclusion of law reached by the chancellor. We therefore affirm the order appealed. See Clark v. Clark, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 426.

The appellee, former'husband, has cross assigned error upon the allowance of an attorney’s fee to the former wife. It is urged that the proceeding was not one for modification but, was to construe the agreement of the parties. Inasmuch as the husband’s petition sought modification as well as clarification, the wife was entitled to an attorney’s fee to resist the petition to modify the child support provisions of the final decree. We affirm the allowance of the fee upon the authority of Simpson v. Simpson, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 764, and Teply v. Key, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 549.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals a post final decree order which terminated an allowance in the final decree. The property and the financial section of the final decree were based upon an agreement' between the parties. Subsequent to the final decree, the parties amended certain provisions by a further agreement. The former husband filed a petition for modification or construction of the agreement between the parties. The court found for the petitioner and terminated an allowance of $150.00 a month for housing for the former wife, who has remarried, and minor child. The basis for the ruling was a construction of the subsequent agreement so that a provision of the final decree, providing for termination of the payment upon remarriage of the former wife, was carried forward and included in the amendment.

The language of the agreement clearly supports the conclusion of law reached by the chancellor. We therefore affirm the order appealed. See Clark v. Clark, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 426.

The appellee, former'husband, has cross assigned error upon the allowance of an attorney’s fee to the former wife. It is urged that the proceeding was not one for modification but, was to construe the agreement of the parties. Inasmuch as the husband’s petition sought modification as well as clarification, the wife was entitled to an attorney’s fee to resist the petition to modify the child support provisions of the final decree. We affirm the allowance of the fee upon the authority of Simpson v. Simpson, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 764, and Teply v. Key, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 549.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 So. 2d 677, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-v-ash-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack