Mann v. Mann

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mann v. Mann

145 So. 2d 886

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 30, 1962

DocketNo. 62-269

StatusPublished

This text of 145 So. 2d 886 (Mann v. Mann) 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

Mann v. Mann, 145 So. 2d 886 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Mann appeals a post-decretal order which granted her a judgment in the-amount of her former husband’s arrearage-in support payments, and which reduced' the amount of the future payments. She-urges error because (1) prior to entertaining the ex-husband’s petition for reduction-of support payments, the chancellor failed to make a finding that the husband was. unable to make himself current; (2) there-was insufficient evidence to justify a reduction in the amount of support previously agreed upon; (3) of the inadequacy ofr the attorney’s fee allowed.

The absence of an express finding is not a ground for reversal when the-record supplies the necessary basis for [887]*887the decree. The record here supports the action of the chancellor under his broad ■discretion in such cases. See Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902. In addition it appears that the absence of the wife and the children from the state contributed to the accumulation of the arrear-age.

Appellant has failed to demonstrate error under either of the remaining points. Cf., Fort v. Fort, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 313; Moore v. Moore, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 878.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Mann appeals a post-decretal order which granted her a judgment in the-amount of her former husband’s arrearage-in support payments, and which reduced' the amount of the future payments. She-urges error because (1) prior to entertaining the ex-husband’s petition for reduction-of support payments, the chancellor failed to make a finding that the husband was. unable to make himself current; (2) there-was insufficient evidence to justify a reduction in the amount of support previously agreed upon; (3) of the inadequacy ofr the attorney’s fee allowed.

The absence of an express finding is not a ground for reversal when the-record supplies the necessary basis for [887]*887the decree. The record here supports the action of the chancellor under his broad ■discretion in such cases. See Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902. In addition it appears that the absence of the wife and the children from the state contributed to the accumulation of the arrear-age.

Appellant has failed to demonstrate error under either of the remaining points. Cf., Fort v. Fort, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 313; Moore v. Moore, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 878.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 So. 2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-mann-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack