THOMAS N. CARLTON, APPELLANT,
v.
ADA CARLTON, 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 reversed an order that denied a motion to dismiss alimony proceedings, holding that a divorced wife who has remarried is not entitled to alimony or support.
No, a divorced wife who has remarried is not entitled to alimony or maintenance and support.
“As the divorced wife has married, she is not entitled to alimony or maintenance and support (1 R. C. L. 950), therefore the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with direction to dismiss the proceedings.”
This quote directly states the holding and disposition of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a previous appeal where the court affirmed a divorce but reversed the denial of alimony, the husband filed a motion to dismiss alimony proce…
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 Equity In Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
On the former appeal herein-a decree granting a divorce to the-husband and denying alimony to -the-wife was affirmed as to the divorce and reversed as to -the alimony, the cause being remanded for appropriate proceedings awarding the wife a reasonable allowance for her maintenance and support. Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 South. Rep. 87.
Subsequently an appeal was taken from an order denying a motion made by the complainant to dismiss-the proceedings on the ground that his divorced wife had married. The Chancellor states in *his order that he would have granted the motion, but denied it only’ because he regarded the opinon of this court as holding the defendant divorced wife to have “a special equity in the property” of the husband. Some of the language of the opinion is not clear, but its import is that under the circumstances of the case as stated the divorced wife should equitably have from her husband a reasonable allowance for her maintenance and support. As the divorced wife has married, she is not entitled to alimony or maintenance and support (1 R. C. L. 950), therefore the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with direction to dismiss the proceedings.
It is so ordered.
West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Táylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Vance v. Vance, 143 Fla. 513 (Fla. 1940)…ed on to modify the settlement in this case is that appellant has remarried and that the monthly payments made to her amount to nothing more than alimony which she is 'not now entitled to. Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 So. 87, and 87 Fla. 460, 100 So. 745, and cases of like import are relied on to support appellee’s theory of the case and such cases appear to have been the reliance of the chancellor. Under a proper state of facts, the Carlton cases would warrant the chancellor’s conclusion but not s…
-
Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1980)…ary alimony payments which had been established by previous court order were terminated by the remarriage. Also barred is any facet of periodic or lump sum alimony which is predicated on the need to support the wife. Carlton v. Carlton, 87 Fla. 460, 100 So. 745 (1924). We find, however, that remarriage of the wife does not bar consideration of lump sum alimony to the extent it is used to provide the wife with an equitable share of the assets of the parties accumulated during their marriage, as distinguish…
-
Smith v. Smith, 107 So. 257 (Fla. 1925)…nent alimony is not justifiable, as 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…
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
- Howard v. State, 78 Fla. 388 (Fla. 1919)
- The State of Fla. Upon Relation of Charles T. Dyess v. Pellam, 78 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1919)