Gaffney v. Gaffney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gaffney v. Gaffney

287 So. 2d 114

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 1973

DocketNo. 73-418

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 287 So. 2d 114 (Gaffney v. Gaffney) 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

Gaffney v. Gaffney, 287 So. 2d 114 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties approved and incorporated by reference their written property settlement agreement. The wife’s post-judgment Motion to Enforce certain terms of this agreement was denied, and is the order appealed.

We do not construe the order as one adjudicating any issue relating to appellee’s future obligation to furnish a college education (including tuition, board and books) for his son, Steve Gaffney. The order merely found that, as of the time of the hearing, the appellee “has fully complied with the property settlement agreement,” and it was upon this finding that the court denied the motion. In this respect, and upon this construction, of the effect of the order, we conclude that no error has been demonstrated and, thus, we affirm.

OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and GONZALEZ, JOSE A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

A final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties approved and incorporated by reference their written property settlement agreement. The wife’s post-judgment Motion to Enforce certain terms of this agreement was denied, and is the order appealed.

We do not construe the order as one adjudicating any issue relating to appellee’s future obligation to furnish a college education (including tuition, board and books) for his son, Steve Gaffney. The order merely found that, as of the time of the hearing, the appellee “has fully complied with the property settlement agreement,” and it was upon this finding that the court denied the motion. In this respect, and upon this construction, of the effect of the order, we conclude that no error has been demonstrated and, thus, we affirm.

OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and GONZALEZ, JOSE A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 So. 2d 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaffney-v-gaffney-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack