Simon v. Simon

155 So. 2d 849
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 27, 1963
Docket62-779
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 155 So. 2d 849 (Simon v. Simon) 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
Simon v. Simon, 155 So. 2d 849 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

155 So.2d 849 (1963)

Sarah SIMON, Appellant,
v.
Victor SIMON, Appellee.

No. 62-779.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

August 27, 1963.

Loring P. Evans, Jr., and Dan G. Wheeler, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Monroe Gelb, Miami, for appellee.

Before CARROLL, PEARSON, TILLMAN and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-wife appeals an order modifying the alimony provision of a divorce decree. The principal point urged on appeal is that the trial court should have dismissed or denied the husband's petition under the clean hands doctrine. A petition to modify an award of alimony made in a final decree of divorce will not be granted except upon a showing of a change in circumstances. Katiba v. Katiba, Fla.App. 1959, 110 So.2d 693, 78 A.L.R.2d 1107. Conversely, it may not be denied if the change is clearly shown. See Vilas v. Vilas, 153 Fla. 102, 13 So.2d 807. Under these circumstances the clean hands doctrine has a limited application, and the refusal of the chancellor to apply it to the appellee in this case cannot be said to be error. Compare Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902.

Appellant's second point is directed to the weight of the evidence and must be denied upon authority of the rule stated in Moore v. Moore, Fla.App. 1959, 113 So.2d 878.

The third point presented charges error because the chancellor made his modification *850 effective on a date subsequent to the filing of the petition for modification, but prior to the date of the final hearing. The effective date of an order modifying the support or alimony provisions of a final decree of divorce is discretionary with the chancellor and will not be disturbed if based upon equity and good conscience. See McArthur v. McArthur, Fla. 1958, 106 So.2d 73.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Bloom v. Bloom
503 So. 2d 932 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Kennedy v. Kennedy
464 So. 2d 1289 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Theisen v. Theisen
463 So. 2d 427 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Broudy v. Broudy
423 So. 2d 504 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Meltzer v. Meltzer
400 So. 2d 32 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Brisco v. Brisco
355 So. 2d 506 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Patterson v. Patterson
348 So. 2d 592 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Anderson v. Anderson
333 So. 2d 484 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Crandall v. Crandall
287 A.2d 326 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1972)
Chord v. Chord
209 So. 2d 281 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
DuVernoy v. DuVernoy
202 So. 2d 620 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Smith v. Smith
197 So. 2d 16 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Boyle v. Boyle
194 So. 2d 64 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Ginsberg v. Ginsberg
156 So. 2d 882 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 So. 2d 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-simon-fladistctapp-1963.