HERMAN SELINSKY
v.
ESTHER ANSHEN SELINSKY
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 held that the chancellor erred in rejecting the special master's findings without reasonable justification.
A husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty, and the wife countercharged. A special master found the husband's charges proven and recommended a divor…
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 Special Master Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed a bill for divorce charging his wife with a. violent and ungovernable temper and cruelty. The wife answered by charging, .in substance, the same.
*535The cause was referred to a special master who found the husband’s charges proven; the wife’s without proof and recommended a divorce for the husband. He also found that while the parties were previously residents of New York a decree in favor of the wife had been entered from bed and board and as to that decree the husband was in default several hundred dollars. Accordingly the master recommended the payment of $25.00 per week alimony until the further order of the court.
The chancellor was of the opinion that the husband’s own wrongful conduct induced the wife’s misbehavior. He Overruled the master’s recommendation and denied relief to both parties.
We are confronted with a situation where the master, who saw and heard the witnesses, came to one conclusion and the chancellor reached another. We have most carefully considered the entire record and we are unable to find reasonable justification in the chancellor’s conclusion to reject the master’s findings.
The decree is therefore reversed with directions to enter a decree not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN and BARNS, JJ., and WISE-HEART, Associate Justice, concur.
THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.