CECELIA D. CLOSE
v.
GEORGE H. CLOSE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a wife's separate maintenance suit, holding that the suit was not maintainable because the husband was adequately providing for his family at the time the suit was filed. The court clarified that such suits are only maintainable when a husband, with the ability to support his family, fails to do so.
No, a separate maintenance suit under Section 65.10 F.S. 1941 is not maintainable if the husband is adequately providing for his wife and children at the time the suit is filed. The suit is only maintainable when the husband, having the ability to support his family, fails to do so.
“In order for the suit to be maintained, the husband must be able to maintain or to contribute to the support of his family and fail.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for a separate maintenance suit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA wife filed a bill of complaint for separate maintenance for herself and two minor children under Section 65.10 F.S. 1941. The statute allows such su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed her bill of complaint for separate maintenance for herself and two minor children, pursuant to the provisions of Section 65.10 F.S. 1941. This Section authorizes a suit by the wife where the “husband having ability to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his wife or minor children shall fail to do so.” In order for the suit to be maintained, the husband must be able to maintain or to contribute to the support of his family and fail. If the husband at the time of the institution of the suit is not withholding support, commensurate with the financial condition and circumstances of the parties, this action is not maintainable.
Here, the Chancellor found that at the time of the institution of the suit and during the progress thereof the appellee *637was adequately providing for the support of his wife and children and dismissed the bill with prejudice. The finding of the Chancellor is supported by the evidence. Should the facts change, and the husband thereafter withhold support, a new action is thereafter maintainable. The action may be prosecuted whenever, and only whenever, the husband having ability to maintain or contribute “shall fail to do so.”
Considerable testimony was taken to determine who was at fault in the separation of the parties, but this question becomes immaterial in view of the finding that the appellee was not withholding support from his family.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C.J.,- BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pawley v. Pawley, 46 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1950)…insofar as it directed the dismissal of the appellant's bill and her cause of action predicated thereon, must be affirmed. Such holding and judgment would be mandatory under our adjudications if there had never been a Cuban divorce. Close v. Close, 158 Fla. 636, 29 So. 2d 625; Nelson v. State ex-rel. Quigg, 156 Fla. 189, 23 So. 2d 136, and cases therein cited; City of Miami v. Huttoe, Fla., 38 So. 2d 819; and Blanchard v. McCord, Fla., 40 So. 2d 457. See also Harmon v. Harmon, Fla., 40 So. 2d 209. At this…
-
Stone v. Stone, 151 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…Court and the Supreme Court of Florida have held that if the husband at the time of the institution of a suit under § 65.10, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., is not withholding support, such action is not maintainable. The Supreme Court so held in Close v. Close, 158 Fla. 636, 29 So. 2d 625; and this Court held similarly in Perry v. Perry, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So. 2d 152. See also Poerschke v. Poerschke, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 30. In the instant case the husband announced his intention of leaving his wife and terminating…
-
Wood v. Wood, 166 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…d to suits under Section 65.10. “If at the time suit for separate maintenance is instituted the husband is providing support commensurate with the financial condition and circumstances of the parties, the action is-not maintainable. Close v. Close, 158 Fla. 636, 29 So. 2d 625 (1947).”2 Though the Rambo case specifically mentions Section 65.10 as being the statute-under consideration in pronouncing the above ruling, the complaint had been, framed so as to come within either Section 65.09 or Section 65.10.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence