Poorman v. Poorman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Poorman v. Poorman

240 So. 2d 510

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 1970

DocketNo. 70-193

StatusPublished

This text of 240 So. 2d 510 (Poorman v. Poorman) 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

Poorman v. Poorman, 240 So. 2d 510 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order modifying a final judgment of divorce by allowing the husband to substitute a less expensive insurance policy for the one provided in the final judgment. The final judgment was based upon an agreement between the parties.

On this appeal appellant wife argues that the court based its decision upon improperly admitted evidence which was in violation of the parole evidence rule. The post-decretal order is affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in Royal American Rlty., Inc. v. Bank of Palm Beach & Tr. Co., Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 336.

An additional point presented is directed to the denial of the wife’s petition for an increase in child support. We find no abuse of discretion demonstrated. Ludacer v. Ludacer, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 64.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order modifying a final judgment of divorce by allowing the husband to substitute a less expensive insurance policy for the one provided in the final judgment. The final judgment was based upon an agreement between the parties.

On this appeal appellant wife argues that the court based its decision upon improperly admitted evidence which was in violation of the parole evidence rule. The post-decretal order is affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in Royal American Rlty., Inc. v. Bank of Palm Beach & Tr. Co., Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 336.

An additional point presented is directed to the denial of the wife’s petition for an increase in child support. We find no abuse of discretion demonstrated. Ludacer v. Ludacer, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 64.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 So. 2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poorman-v-poorman-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack