PETER N. K. SCHWENK, JR.,
v.
MARIE H. SCHWENK
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 order allowing counsel fees for a wife in a suit for alimony without divorce, holding that the ninety-day residency requirement for divorce actions does not apply to such alimony suits. The court also awarded the wife additional counsel fees for the appeal.
No, the ninety-day residency requirement for divorce actions is inapplicable to suits for alimony without divorce. Yes, the appellate court can award counsel fees for the wife in such an appeal.
“We cannot agree to this contention because the ninety day residence period prior to filling suit for divorce is wholly inapplicable to suits by a wife for alimony filed under Section 65.10, supra.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for rejecting the husband's appeal based on residency requirements.
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 seeking alimony without divorce under Florida Statutes Section 65.09. The chancellor dismissed the bill but ordered t…
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 Residency Requirements For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
The bill of complaint in the case at bar was brought under the provisions of Section 65.09, Fla. Stats. 1941 (FSA), which authorizes courts of equity to award alimony without granting a divorce. On final hearing the chancellor below entered an order dismissing the bill of complaint without prejudice but requiring the husband to pay counsel fees for the wife and on appeal here it is contended that the chancellor was powerless under the law to make and enter such an order because the parties had not been residents in the state of Florida for ninety days. We cannot agree to this contention because the ninety day residence period prior to filling suit for divorce is wholly inapplicable to suits by a wife for alimony filed under Section 65.10, supra. See Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243, 2 So. (2nd) 870. So the part of the decree appealed from, challenged because fees were allowed plaintiffs’ attorneys, is affirmed.
Since the husband perfected this appeal the wife has applied here by appropriate motion for an order allowing her counsel fees in this Court and the motion is granted and her fees allowed in the sum of $250.00.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL, and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1952)…nt of the State of Florida and to pass upon the question of divorce if he was such a resident. The Court had jurisdiction to grant the wife alimony unconnected with divorce. See Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243, 2 So. 2d 870; Schwenk v. Schwenk, 159 Fla. 694, 32 So. 2d 734; Fairlamb v. Fairlamb, 156 Fla. 104, 22 So. 2d 580. On the question of temporary alimony and attorneys' fees, the undisputed evidence shows that the appellee was a woman of advanced age who had been married to the appellant for over…
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley, 125 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1960)…TERRELL, Justice. This petition for certiorari seeks to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, on the ground that said decision is in conflict with Schwenk v. Schwenk, 1948, 159 Fla. 694, 32 So. 2d 734, and Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 1941, 147 Fla. 243, 2 So. 2d 870, decided by this court. The case arose from these facts: W. C. Tinsley, Jr., hereinafter referred to as Tinsley, filed suit for divorce in the Circuit Court of Dade County…1 / 2
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley, 116 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…t be ignored, or confused.” Although comment was made in other cases regarding the applicability of the current statute (§ 65.09) nevertheless the latest expression by the Supreme Court of Florida on this section is contained in Schwenk v. Schwenk, 159 Fla. 694, 32 So. 2d 734, 735, decided in 1948. The Supreme Court in that case departed from its prior holdings [*652] construing this statute and its predecessors and held that the requisite period of residence required for obtaining a divorce was “wholly in…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1941)