Short v. Short

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Short v. Short

162 So. 2d 538, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4646

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 1964

DocketNo. 64-40

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 162 So. 2d 538 (Short v. Short) 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

Short v. Short, 162 So. 2d 538, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4646 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal, the appellant brings on for review a post-final decree order modifying that portion of a final, decree of divorce awarding her the custody of the minor child of the parties.

Unfortunately, we were not presented with a transcript of the proceedings which took place before the chancellor upon the petition for modification, as there was no court reporter present. Without such a record, it is impossible for this court to determine if the chancellor abused his discretion. See: Hall v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 599; Insana v. Hasty, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 791; Southern National Bank of Fort Walton Beach v. Young, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 788. Once again, for the benefit of the bar, attention is called to the appropriate procedure to be used to-establish a record when no court reporter was present at the hearing. See: Downing v. Bird, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 559; Pottash v. Dry & Company, 8 Fla.Supp. 174.

Therefore, without the benefit of the evidence upon which the chancellor rendered' his decision, we must accept his order as-correct and same is hereby affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant to apply to the-chancellor for reasonable rights of visitation and to seek a modification of the custody order at any time in'the future, in the-event of new conditions arising which [539]*539would justify a modification thereof for the best interests of the child. See: Sayward v. Sayward, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 865; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 262.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal, the appellant brings on for review a post-final decree order modifying that portion of a final, decree of divorce awarding her the custody of the minor child of the parties.

Unfortunately, we were not presented with a transcript of the proceedings which took place before the chancellor upon the petition for modification, as there was no court reporter present. Without such a record, it is impossible for this court to determine if the chancellor abused his discretion. See: Hall v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 599; Insana v. Hasty, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 791; Southern National Bank of Fort Walton Beach v. Young, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 788. Once again, for the benefit of the bar, attention is called to the appropriate procedure to be used to-establish a record when no court reporter was present at the hearing. See: Downing v. Bird, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 559; Pottash v. Dry & Company, 8 Fla.Supp. 174.

Therefore, without the benefit of the evidence upon which the chancellor rendered' his decision, we must accept his order as-correct and same is hereby affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant to apply to the-chancellor for reasonable rights of visitation and to seek a modification of the custody order at any time in'the future, in the-event of new conditions arising which [539]*539would justify a modification thereof for the best interests of the child. See: Sayward v. Sayward, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 865; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 262.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 2d 538, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/short-v-short-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack