ALICE PEARCE KUBE
v.
ROBERT H. KUBE
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 appellate court reviewed a divorce decree where the wife was granted custody of their child and child support, but denied alimony. The court found that denying alimony was an abuse of discretion given the wife's complete financial dependence on the husband and her inability to work due to childcare responsibilities.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by denying alimony. The wife's complete financial dependence and inability to work due to caring for the parties' infant child warranted an alimony award.
“We are of opinion that under these facts the chancellor should have made an award of alimony to the plaintiff, and that his refusal to do so amounted to an abuse of judicial discretion.”
Establishes the court's finding that the denial of alimony was an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife sued for divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty and temper. The trial court granted the divorce, awarded custody of their infant child to the …
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 Habitual Indulgence In Violent And Ungovernable Temper cases and more on FLexlaw
Alice Pearce Kube brought suit for divorce against her husband, Robert H. Kube, on the grounds of habitual indulgence by defendant in violent and ungovernable temper and extreme cruelty. In her bill the plaintiff prayed for the custody of the six months old child of the parties, for support money for the child, and for alimony. At final hearing the chancellor granted the plaintiff a divorce, gave her the custody and control of the child, and decreed that the husband should contribute the sum of $25.00 per week for its support and maintenance; but refused the prayer for alimony. The wife has taken an appeal from that portion of the decree denying alimony.
From the testimony appearing in the record on the issue of alimony it is indisputably shown that at the time of the hearing the defendant was engaged in a business whereby he earned approximately $550. a month, that the plaintiff had no independent income, and that she was entirely dependent upon the defendant for a livelihood. The plaintiff was living with her parents, who were engaged in operating a small tourist home in North Carolina, this being their only real source of income. Plaintiff could not work and earn money of her own for the reason that her father was physically incapacitated, her mother was presently employed, and no one else was available to take care of the six months old baby in the event the plaintiff obtained employment.
*896We are of opinion that under these facts the chancellor should have made an award of alimony to the plaintiff, and that his refusal to do so amounted to an abuse of judicial discretion. On this issue, therefore, the decree appealed from should be modified and the cause remanded with directions to the chancellor to reconsider the matter and thereupon to make an award of alimony to the plaintiff in at least some reasonable amount commensurate with the necessities of the plaintiff and the ability of the defendant to pay, as shown by the record.
It is so ordered.
Thomas, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirby v. Kirby, 111 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…would ignore the equities. Such [*305] is not only counter to every principle of equity and good conscience, but is not now, never has been, and never should be the law. See Chesnut v. Chesnut, 160 Fla. 83, 33 So. 2d 730; Kube v. Kube, 159 Fla. 895, 32 So. 2d 921; Brunner v. Brunner, 159 Fla. 762, 32 So. 2d 736; Knox v. Knox, 159 Fla. 123, 31 So. 2d 159; Borden v. Borden, 156 Fla. 770, 23 So. 2d 529; Randolph v. Randolph, 146 Fla. 491, 1 So. 2d 480. My view does not do violence to the well-established rule…
-
Schiff v. Schiff, 123 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…he was presently able to earn her livelihood, have reserved jurisdiction on the alimony question and allowed an increased amount for child support, and that the failure of the chancellor to do so amounted to an abuse of discretion. See Kube v. Kube, 159 Fla. 895, 32 So. 2d 921. On these issues, therefore, the decree appealed from should be modified and the cause remanded with directions to the chancellor to reconsider the matter of alimony and child support and thereupon to make an award of alimony, or rese…
-
Zuidhof v. Gerda Zuidhof, 242 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…attorney fees constituted an abuse of discretion and same should be cancelled. Whitehead v. Whitehead, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 397; Harrison v. Harrison, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 709; Davis v. Davis, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 777; Kube v. Kube, Fla.1947, 159 Fla. 895, 32 So. 2d 921; Markland v. Markland, Fla.1945, 155 Fla. 629, 21 So. 2d 145; Haddon v. Haddon, Fla.1875, 36 Fla. 413, 18 So. 779; Chaires v. Chaires, Fla. 1863, 10 Fla. 308. Except as herein mentioned to the contrary the judgment is affirmed, and t…