Smith v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Smith

117 So. 2d 508

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. Smith. Read the opinion of the Court — 98 So. 2d 897 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 1, 1960·No. No. 59-331·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, husband, appeals from a final decree which granted the wife a divorce, a lump sum as alimony, and attorney’s fees. The points argued were as follows: the court erred in entering an order extending the time for taking testimony, in allowing an excessive amount as lump sum alimony, and in allowing excessive attorney’s fees to the wife.

We have reviewed the record in the light of the arguments as to each point presented and hold that error has not been demonstrated. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d [509]*509671; Glassman v. Deauville Enterprises, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 641.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, husband, appeals from a final decree which granted the wife a divorce, a lump sum as alimony, and attorney’s fees. The points argued were as follows: the court erred in entering an order extending the time for taking testimony, in allowing an excessive amount as lump sum alimony, and in allowing excessive attorney’s fees to the wife.

We have reviewed the record in the light of the arguments as to each point presented and hold that error has not been demonstrated. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d [509]*509671; Glassman v. Deauville Enterprises, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 641.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

Smith v. Smith, 117 So. 2d 508 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

117 So. 2d 508 (Smith v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related