Case ID: so2d_361/html/0827-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shirley TAPLIN, Appellant, v. Sol TAPLIN, Appellee.
    No. 77-1742.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Aug. 22, 1978.
    Snyder, Young, Stern, Barrett & Tan-nenbaum and William L. Rogers, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
    Podhurst, Orseck & Parks and Joel D. Eaton, Miami, for appellee.
    Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant wife appeals an order denying her petition for modification and her petition for attorney’s fees. She urges error upon the argument that the manifest weight of the evidence established her need for, and the husband’s ability to respond to, an increase in alimony. We find that no error has been shown. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); and Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976).

Affirmed.