Riesner v. Riesner

Supreme Court of Florida

Riesner v. Riesner

9 So. 2d 108, 151 Fla. 8, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 1102

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 So. 2d 108 (Riesner v. Riesner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riesner v. Riesner, 9 So. 2d 108, 151 Fla. 8, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 1102 (Fla. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAPMAN, J.:

The sole question presented by this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the rulings of the chancellor below when entering orders dated January 14, 1942, and December 6, 1941, the terms of which reduced the amount of the monthly allowance •from the sum of $50.00 per week to the sum of $35.00 per week to be paid by Leo Riesner to David Riesner, a minor, the adopted child of Leo Riesner and Florence Riesner, the custody of whom, by a previous order, had been awarded to Florence Riesner simultaneously with the granting of a divorce, and the weekly payments were made to her under the terms of the decree. The case comes here for the third time. See Riesner v. Riesner, 129 Fla. 762, 176 So. 765; Riesner v. Riesner,. 136 Fla. 129, 186 So. 669.

Hearings were had before the chancellor on a rule to show cause and testimony of the parties was taken, and after hearing all the testimony it was the conclusion of the chancellor that because of financial reverses of Leo Riesner the weekly payments should be reduced. It is true and the record reflects evidence to the effect that Leo Riesner’s property holdings had been altered or changed for the purpose of presenting to the Court the favorable results of the alleged change of Riesner’s financial status. In a previous pleading filed in the case supra by him it was admitted *10 he could and was financially able to pay $40.00 per week. Minor children are wards of the court and the law grants broad discretion in making orders affecting their welfare. It has not been shown that the challenged orders are erroneous or that the chancellor abused his discretion. Cases on appeal to this court, come here, with the presumption of correctness as to the rulings challenged. We fail to find error in the record.

Affirmed.

BROWN, C. J., and TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

CHAPMAN, J.:

The sole question presented by this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the rulings of the chancellor below when entering orders dated January 14, 1942, and December 6, 1941, the terms of which reduced the amount of the monthly allowance •from the sum of $50.00 per week to the sum of $35.00 per week to be paid by Leo Riesner to David Riesner, a minor, the adopted child of Leo Riesner and Florence Riesner, the custody of whom, by a previous order, had been awarded to Florence Riesner simultaneously with the granting of a divorce, and the weekly payments were made to her under the terms of the decree. The case comes here for the third time. See Riesner v. Riesner, 129 Fla. 762, 176 So. 765; Riesner v. Riesner,. 136 Fla. 129, 186 So. 669.

Hearings were had before the chancellor on a rule to show cause and testimony of the parties was taken, and after hearing all the testimony it was the conclusion of the chancellor that because of financial reverses of Leo Riesner the weekly payments should be reduced. It is true and the record reflects evidence to the effect that Leo Riesner’s property holdings had been altered or changed for the purpose of presenting to the Court the favorable results of the alleged change of Riesner’s financial status. In a previous pleading filed in the case supra by him it was admitted *10 he could and was financially able to pay $40.00 per week. Minor children are wards of the court and the law grants broad discretion in making orders affecting their welfare. It has not been shown that the challenged orders are erroneous or that the chancellor abused his discretion. Cases on appeal to this court, come here, with the presumption of correctness as to the rulings challenged. We fail to find error in the record.

Affirmed.

BROWN, C. J., and TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 So. 2d 108, 151 Fla. 8, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 1102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riesner-v-riesner-fla-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack