Railey v. Railey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Railey v. Railey

161 So. 2d 250, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4526

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1964

DocketNo. 63-734

StatusPublished

This text of 161 So. 2d 250 (Railey v. Railey) 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

Railey v. Railey, 161 So. 2d 250, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4526 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order reducing alimony payments from $150.00 per month, as set in the final decree, to $87.50 per month. The reduction was upon the petition of the appellant. The basis of the change was a reduction of the former husband’s income and an increase in the former wife’s income occasioned by employment which she testified was necessary in order to supplement the alimony and child support payments provided in the final decree. The former husband, as appellant, urges on this appeal that the court erred in failing to eliminate all alimony.

We cannot agree that this record demonstrates that the trial judge abused the broad discretion the law requires that he exercise upon such an application. Cf. Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902; Mann v. Mann, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d .886.

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 reducing alimony payments from $150.00 per month, as set in the final decree, to $87.50 per month. The reduction was upon the petition of the appellant. The basis of the change was a reduction of the former husband’s income and an increase in the former wife’s income occasioned by employment which she testified was necessary in order to supplement the alimony and child support payments provided in the final decree. The former husband, as appellant, urges on this appeal that the court erred in failing to eliminate all alimony.

We cannot agree that this record demonstrates that the trial judge abused the broad discretion the law requires that he exercise upon such an application. Cf. Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902; Mann v. Mann, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d .886.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 So. 2d 250, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/railey-v-railey-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack