ANNA RABORN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN D. RABORN, APPELLEE
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 divorce decree granted to a husband but reversed the denial of alimony to the wife, remanding for further consideration of spousal support.
The court affirmed the divorce decree, finding substantial evidence supported it. It also affirmed the child support award. However, the court reversed the denial of alimony, remanding the issue for further consideration.
“There is substantial evidence warranting a decree of divorce.”
Reasoning for affirming the divorce.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband filed for divorce based on desertion, extreme cruelty, and ungovernable temper. The wife denied the charges and sought alimony. The trial co…
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
Per Curiam.
Appellee brought a bill for divorce against appellant, alleging three statutory grounds, viz., desertion, extreme cruelty and habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper. The defendant wife asked for alimony and by answer denied the charges against her. Voluminous testimony' was taken.' The chancellor granted a divorce to the husband and awarded four of the children to him, decreeing also an allowance of thirty dollars per month to the wife for the support of the other two children committed to her care and custody. Alimony was denied. The defendant wife appealed and contends here that the decree is erroneous in granting the divorce on the testimony, and in refusing alimony. There is substantial evidence warranting a decree of divorce. Upon the authority of Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 South. Bep. 87,. the decree granting the divorce is affirmed; and the decree as to an allowance to the appellant for the support of two children committed to her care is also affirmed. But the decree denying alimony is reversed and the matter of appropriate provision for the support of the appellant is reserved to the lower court for proper action should the circumstances of the case warrant it.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and West, J. J., concur. Ellis, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Dodson v. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 159 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1947)…based largely upon the assumption that National Title Insurance Company owed a debt to Mr. Dodson. This court has repeatedly held that an escrow holder is a trustee. Tomasello v. Murphy, 100 Fla. 132, 129 So. 328; Ullendorff v. Graham, 80 Fla. 845, 87 So. 50; Chace v. Johnson, 98 Fla. 118, 123 So. 519. A trustee is not transformed into a debtor merely because he had partially executed the trust and nothing remains for him to do but disburse the trust funds. Delivery, actual or constructive, is essentia…
-
Watkins v. NCNB Nat'l Bank OF Fla., N.A., 622 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…isclose. Escrow holders are recognized as agents of the parties to the escrow and as trustees in charge of the performance of an express trust. Dodson v. National Title Ins. Co., 159 Fla. 371, 31 So. 2d 402 (1947); Ullendorff v. Graham, 80 Fla. 845, 87 So. 50 (1920); SMP, Ltd. v. Syprett, Meshad, Resnick & Lieb, P.A., 584 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Biadi v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 374 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). As such, escrow holders have a fiduciary duty to exercise reasonable skill and ordin…
-
Smith v. Smith, 107 So. 257 (Fla. 1925)…s was held by this court in Phinney v. Phinney, 77 Fla. 850, 82 So. 357, unless special equities, such as form the basis of the decisions in Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 253, 83 So. 87, also same case in 87 Fla. 460, 100 So. 745, and Raborn v. Raborn,81 Fla. 51, 87 So. 50, warrant a departure from the general rule. Such special equities do not appear in the instant case. See also in this connection Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858,43 So. 923, where it was held that where the life without just cause abandons…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. Upon Relation of Charles T. Dyess v. Pellam, 78 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1919)