Purcell v. Purcell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Purcell v. Purcell

223 So. 2d 389, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5681

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 1969

DocketNo. L-120

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 223 So. 2d 389 (Purcell v. Purcell) 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

Purcell v. Purcell, 223 So. 2d 389, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5681 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal Appellant, the divorced wife of Appellee, contests the trial court’s order reducing alimony from $708.33 to $600.00 per month.

Our review of the record reveals that competent evidence was presented to the trial court reflecting a material change in [390]*390the husband’s health, financial ability and economic prospects for his business. Since the evidence clearly shows the husband’s financial incapacity to continue alimony payments in the amount agreed upon by the parties and ordered by the divorce decree, it is axiomatic that the trial judge in his discretion may modify the decree and order a reduction. Therefore, the decree appealed is

Affirmed.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal Appellant, the divorced wife of Appellee, contests the trial court’s order reducing alimony from $708.33 to $600.00 per month.

Our review of the record reveals that competent evidence was presented to the trial court reflecting a material change in [390]*390the husband’s health, financial ability and economic prospects for his business. Since the evidence clearly shows the husband’s financial incapacity to continue alimony payments in the amount agreed upon by the parties and ordered by the divorce decree, it is axiomatic that the trial judge in his discretion may modify the decree and order a reduction. Therefore, the decree appealed is

Affirmed.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 So. 2d 389, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purcell-v-purcell-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack