Smith v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Smith

117 So. 2d 508

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1960

DocketNo. 59-331

StatusPublished

This text of 117 So. 2d 508 (Smith v. Smith) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 So. 2d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack