Martin v. Martin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martin v. Martin

145 So. 2d 556

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 1962

DocketNo. 59-609

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 So. 2d 556 (Martin v. Martin) 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

Martin v. Martin, 145 So. 2d 556 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree for alimony and child support entered in a suit for separate maintenance brought under § 65.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The appellant raised two questions. First, it was contended the matter was not cognizable in equity because neither party resided in Florida. The second question was: “If the court had jurisdiction, the various awards were excessive in view of the husband’s income.” When the appeal was argued we held in favor of the appellant on the jurisdictional point and reversed the decree without ruling on the second question. On certiorari, the Supreme Court quashed our decision (Martin v. Martin, Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 386), and later made provision for the other question on the appeal to be considered and disposed of by this court (Martin v. Martin, Fla.1962, 139 So.2d 406). After due notice the undisposed of question was reargued. On consideration of the arguments, briefs and record, we conclude that the appellant has not carried his burden to demonstrate clear abuse of discretion by the chancellor in making the awards. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671, 672; Astor v. Astor, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 645, 648; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663, 665.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree for alimony and child support entered in a suit for separate maintenance brought under § 65.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The appellant raised two questions. First, it was contended the matter was not cognizable in equity because neither party resided in Florida. The second question was: “If the court had jurisdiction, the various awards were excessive in view of the husband’s income.” When the appeal was argued we held in favor of the appellant on the jurisdictional point and reversed the decree without ruling on the second question. On certiorari, the Supreme Court quashed our decision (Martin v. Martin, Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 386), and later made provision for the other question on the appeal to be considered and disposed of by this court (Martin v. Martin, Fla.1962, 139 So.2d 406). After due notice the undisposed of question was reargued. On consideration of the arguments, briefs and record, we conclude that the appellant has not carried his burden to demonstrate clear abuse of discretion by the chancellor in making the awards. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671, 672; Astor v. Astor, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 645, 648; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663, 665.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 So. 2d 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack