Tate v. Tate

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tate v. Tate

306 So. 2d 165, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14706

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 14, 1975

DocketNo. V-323

StatusPublished

This text of 306 So. 2d 165 (Tate v. Tate) 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

Tate v. Tate, 306 So. 2d 165, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14706 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant herein seeks reversal of an Order modifying a final judgment of dissolution of marriage by reducing a permanent alimony award of $450.00 per month to rehabilitate alimony of $250.00 per month for a period of two years.

We have heard oral argument in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. Upon our consideration thereof, it is our conclusion that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused his sound judicial discretion or that there was no sufficient competent and substantial evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the trial judge. Appellant having failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the modification order appealed herein, the same is Affirmed on the authority of Beard v. Beard, 262 So.2d 269 (Fla.App. 1st, 1972) and Thigpen v. Thigpen, 277 So.2d 583 (Fla. App. 1st, 1973).

The appellant’s motion for attorneys’ fees in connection with this appeal is Denied.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., BOYER, J., and EASTMOORE, E. L., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant herein seeks reversal of an Order modifying a final judgment of dissolution of marriage by reducing a permanent alimony award of $450.00 per month to rehabilitate alimony of $250.00 per month for a period of two years.

We have heard oral argument in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. Upon our consideration thereof, it is our conclusion that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused his sound judicial discretion or that there was no sufficient competent and substantial evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the trial judge. Appellant having failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the modification order appealed herein, the same is Affirmed on the authority of Beard v. Beard, 262 So.2d 269 (Fla.App. 1st, 1972) and Thigpen v. Thigpen, 277 So.2d 583 (Fla. App. 1st, 1973).

The appellant’s motion for attorneys’ fees in connection with this appeal is Denied.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., BOYER, J., and EASTMOORE, E. L., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 So. 2d 165, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-tate-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack