CLARA SEDDON, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM H. SEDDON, 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.
Clara Seddon appeals a final divorce decree granted by the trial court on the same day a master's report was filed, without notice or hearing. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding procedural error and holding that the husband's bill failed to adequately allege facts supporting either extreme cruelty or habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable temper as grounds for divorce.
The trial court committed reversible error by entering a final decree without proper notice and hearing. Additionally, the husband's bill failed to state sufficient facts and circumstances to support either the ground of extreme cruelty or habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable temper as required by Florida statute.
“The action of the court in granting a final decree of divorce on the same day that the report of the master of the evidence taken was filed, and without any setting of the cause down for hearing and without any notice of the final hearing, was error.”
Establishes the procedural error of rendering a final decree without notice or hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam H. Seddon filed a bill for divorce against his wife Clara on grounds of extreme cruelty and habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable …
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 Notice Of Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The appellee, husband, filed his bill against the appellant, wife, in the Circuit Court of Volusia County in equity for divorce on the alleged grounds of extreme cruelty, and the habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable temper toward complainant. The cause was referred to a master to take testimony upon the filing of an answer by the defendant wife, and the master some time prior to the expiration of the three months allowed by the rules for taking testimony, filed his report of the testimony taken, and on the same day with the filing of said master’s report of the evidence taken, without any notice of the hearing, the court below rendered a final decree granting to the complainant husband a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and this decree the defendant wife brings here for review by appeal.
The action of the court in granting a final decree of divorce on the same day that the report of the master of the evidence taken was filed, and without any setting of the cause down for hearing and without any notice of the final hearing, was error. We think further that upon a proper hearing of the canse, the complainant’s bill should have been dismissed, upon the ground that the bill of complaint does not state a ease as would justify a decree of divorce. It alleges the habitual indulgence by the defendant of a violent and ungovernable temper, in the language of the statute, but fails to give in detail such facts and circumstances, and such a continued series of such facts, acts and behavior as that the court can adjudge for itself whether such acts, facts and behavior constitute the “habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable temper, ” as is authorized by the statute. Phelan v. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449; Crawford v. Crawford, 17 Fla. 180; Johnson v. Johnson, 23 Fla. 413, 2 South. Rep. 834; Ray v. Ray, 63 Fla. 558, 57 South. Rep. 609; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 659, 58 South. Rep. 238. Neither do the allegations in the' bill charging extreme cruelty come up to the' requirements laid' down in the case of Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 South. Rep. 867.
For the errors found the decree .of the court below is hereby reversed at the cost of appellee. , .
Browne,- C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frederic G. Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196 (Fla. 1929)…nd to enable defendant to prepare his or her defense, as well as in order that the court may judge whether, the facts being proved, they will support a general charge.” Kellogg v. Kellogg, supra; Crawford v. Crawford, 17 Fla. 180; Seddon v. Seddon, 82 Fla. 48, 89 So. R. 348. The allegations in the instant case limit the ‘ ‘ facts relied upon as constituting extreme cruelty” to the mere allegation that the defendant “did upon several occasions threaten to leave your oratrix and to go to another country.…
-
Wendall P. Arrington v. Arrington, 150 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…pon the ground of habitual intemperance. Appellant first urges that the complaint does not state facts necessary to properly allege a cause of action on the ground of extreme cruelty. See Crawford v. Crawford, 17 Fla. 180 (1879) ; Seddon v. Seddon, 82 Fla. 48, 89 So. 348. We do not find merit in this contention. An examination of the original complaint reveals that sufficient facts were not stated to properly allege a cause of action. However, by subsequent order of the chancellor, the complaint was amen…
-
Kellogg v. Kellogg, 93 Fla. 261 (Fla. 1927)…and intolerable burden and makes it impracticable for complainant to discharge marital duties under such burden.” To like effect, see also Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 So. 923; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 659, 58 Fla. 238; and Seddon v. Seddon; 82 Fla. 48, 89 So. 348. The sixth paragraph of the bill reads as follows: ‘ ‘ That the defendant was- guilty of extreme cruelty towards your complainant in that on one occasion defendant struck complainant with a stick of stove wood and on another occasion st…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1909)
- Phelan v. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449 (Fla. 1868)
- Crawford v. Crawford, 17 Fla. 180 (Fla. 1879)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 23 Fla. 413 (Fla. 1887)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 659 (Fla. 1912)
- Ray v. Luella E. Ray, 63 Fla. 558 (Fla. 1912)