Roth v. Roth

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roth v. Roth

156 So. 2d 663

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1963

DocketNo. 3601

StatusPublished

This text of 156 So. 2d 663 (Roth v. Roth) 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

Roth v. Roth, 156 So. 2d 663 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, in the conclusion of her brief, states:

“In view of the misconception of law by the lower Court, this cause should, be remanded with instructions to find the defendant in contempt, to take testimony as to attorney’s fees, to award petitioner’s attorney a reasonable fee and to modify the Property Settlement Agreement.”

We find no error in the order of the trial judge refusing to find appellee in contempt so we affirm and also deny any attorneys’ fees in this case.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, in the conclusion of her brief, states:

“In view of the misconception of law by the lower Court, this cause should, be remanded with instructions to find the defendant in contempt, to take testimony as to attorney’s fees, to award petitioner’s attorney a reasonable fee and to modify the Property Settlement Agreement.”

We find no error in the order of the trial judge refusing to find appellee in contempt so we affirm and also deny any attorneys’ fees in this case.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 So. 2d 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-roth-fladistctapp-1963.