Webber v. Webber

23 So. 2d 388, 156 Fla. 396, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 868
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 25, 1945
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 23 So. 2d 388 (Webber v. Webber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Webber v. Webber, 23 So. 2d 388, 156 Fla. 396, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 868 (Fla. 1945).

Opinion

ADAMS, J.:

We are called upon to consider a petition for certiorari under Rule 34 seeking to review an order which modified a decree of divorce insofar as it required the payment of monthly sums to this petitioner.

Respondent, who is the divorced husband of petitioner, filed his petition for modification pursuant to Sec. 65.15 F.S. 1941, F.S.A. Answer was filed and after testimony was taken the monthly payments were reduced.

The original decree of divorce incorporated an agreement of the parties which presumably set at rest all questions of every nature and solemnly fixed the sums to be paid petitioner at $85.00 per month. The petition to modify the decree in respect to the monthly payments was grounded on the proposition that he had subsequently remarried; that he had financial requirements, viz.: withholding tax, war bond purchases, interest on real estate mortgages, pension and insurance premiums.

The petition also revealed an increase in salary. Most of the items mentioned are assets rather than liabilities to petitioner. The question narrows down to whether relief should be afforded because of increased living cost and added burdens of supporting another wife.

In Phillippi v. Phillippi, 148 Fla. 393, 4 So. 2nd 465, we held the remarriage of a man would not afford him a ground to be relieved of an alimony decree. See also DeBowes v. DeBowes, 152 Fla. 423, 12 So. 2nd 118.

Where the parties have, by mutual agreement, settled their differences by compromise and the court has ratified the same in the final decree a strong showing is required to modify the terms thereof.

Certiorari is granted and the order is quashed.

CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fisher v. Fisher
582 So. 2d 828 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Brown v. Brown
472 So. 2d 873 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Towers v. Towers
16 V.I. 209 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 1979)
Knight v. Knight
205 So. 2d 353 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Brill v. Brill
173 So. 2d 490 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Glass v. Glass
166 So. 2d 487 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Howard v. Howard
14 Fla. Supp. 128 (Duval County Circuit Court, 1959)
Welch v. Welch
100 S.E.2d 431 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)
Cowen v. Cowen
95 So. 2d 584 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1957)
Cohn v. Mann
38 So. 2d 465 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 So. 2d 388, 156 Fla. 396, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webber-v-webber-fla-1945.