Brody v. Brody

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brody v. Brody

105 So. 2d 378

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 26, 1958

DocketNo. 650

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 105 So. 2d 378 (Brody v. Brody) 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

Brody v. Brody, 105 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the order of the chancellor denying modification of final decree of divorce as it concerned support allowance for a minor child. The contention is that the minor child had entered the military service of the United States and because of this, the support phase for him should be modified.

There was testimony offered by the respective parties before the chancellor but there is no record presented on it so that this court is not in a position to say just what actually transpired before the chancellor. Consequently, we must affirm the order of the chancellor, but we do so without prejudice. Motion for attorneys’ fee is denied.

KANNER, C. J., ALLEN, J., and DAYTON, ORVIL L., A. J., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the order of the chancellor denying modification of final decree of divorce as it concerned support allowance for a minor child. The contention is that the minor child had entered the military service of the United States and because of this, the support phase for him should be modified.

There was testimony offered by the respective parties before the chancellor but there is no record presented on it so that this court is not in a position to say just what actually transpired before the chancellor. Consequently, we must affirm the order of the chancellor, but we do so without prejudice. Motion for attorneys’ fee is denied.

KANNER, C. J., ALLEN, J., and DAYTON, ORVIL L., A. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 2d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brody-v-brody-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack