VICENTE TRIGO, APPELLANT,
v.
CARMEN VALENZUELA TRIGO, 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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision denying a divorce based on extreme cruelty. The court found the evidence insufficient to support the divorce claim and upheld the chancellor's factual findings.
No, the evidence was insufficient to establish extreme cruelty. The chancellor's findings of fact, which resolved conflicts in the evidence against the husband, were not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed on appeal.
“The rule is well settled that divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty will be denied when there is no actual bodily violence, unless the treatment complained of be such as damages health or renders cohabitation intolerable and unsafe, or unless there are threats of mistreatment of such kind as to cause reasonable and abiding apprehension of bodily violence so as to render it impracticable to discharge marital duties.”
This quote establishes the legal standard for extreme cruelty required for a divorce.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband sued for divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty and temper. He also sought custody of their children. The wife denied the allegations and cou…
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 Suit For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, J.-
This is a suit for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and the habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable temper. Complainant also prayed for the custody of the children. Defendant answered denying the material allegations of the bill and asked for alimony, counsel fees and the custody of the children.
The chancellor denied the divorce, awarded the custody of the three children to the defendant with the proviso that complainant might see them and have them in his care once each week, and at other times agreeable to defendant, and allowed alimony and support to the extent of $13.00 per week and $200.00 counsel fees. Appeal is taken from this decree.
The rule is well settled that divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty will be denied when there is no actual bodily violence, unless the treatment complained of be such as damages health or renders cohabitation intolerable and unsafe, or unless there are threats of mistreatment of such kind as to cause reasonable and abiding apprehension of bodily violence so as to render it impracticable to discharge marital duties. Hayes v. Hayes, 86 Fla. 350, South. Rep 66; 9 R. C. L. 341; Hickson v. Hickson, 54 Fla. 556, text 560, 45 South. Rep. 474.
Applying the evidence to the rule so stated, it would be insufficient as basis for the relief sought if it was all relevant and uncontradicted; but it is largely irrelevant and immaterial and is contradicted on every material point. The chancellor resolved the conflicts against the complainant, and careful examination of the record discloses no reason for disturbing his decree.
The facts present the sole question brought here for determination, and when the evidence is taken by a special master the finding of the chancellor on the facts will not be disturbed on appeal unless such findings are clearly shown to be erroneous. Simpson v. First Nat. Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539, 77 South. Rep. 204; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 South. Rep. 105.
Affirmed.
West, C. J., and Wi-iiteield'and Strum, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frederic G. Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196 (Fla. 1929)…the well considered case, Kellogg v. Kellogg, supra, where several former cases before this Court are discussed and reviewed. In the case at bar no actual bodily violence is charged [*1222] nor shown in the evidence. In the case of Trigo v. Trigo, 90 Fla. 60, 105 So. R. 123, this Court said: ‘ ‘ The rule is well settled that divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty will be denied when there is no actual bodily violence, unless the treatment complained of be such as damages health or renders cohabitatio…
-
Windham v. Windham, 144 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1940)…ence so as to render it impracticable to discharge marital duties. The following cases are cited: Chishold v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196, 125 So. 694; Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215, 7 So. 864; Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 So. 923; Trigo v. Trigo, 90 Fla. 60, 105 So. 123; Hancock, 55 Fla. 680, 45 So. 1020, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 670; Hayes v. Hayes, 86 Fla. 350, 98 So. 66; Baker v. Baker, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 So. 661; Kellogg v. Kellogg, 93 Fla. 261, 111 So. 637; Van v. Van, 100 Fla. 612, 129 So. 886; Prall v…
-
Masilotti v. Masilotti, 150 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1942)…it impracticable to discharge marital duties. See Windham v. Windham, 144 Fla. 563, 198 So. 202; Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196, 125 So. 694; Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215, 7 So. 864; Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 So. 923; Trigo v. Trigo, 90 Fla. 60, 105 So. 123; Hancock v. Hancock, 55 Fla. 680, 45 So. 1020, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 670; Hayes v. Hayes, 86 Fla. 350, 98 So. 66, Baker v. [*89] Baker, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 So. 661; Kellogg v. Kellogg, 93 Fla. 261, 111 So. 637; Van v. Van, 100 Fla. 612, 129 So…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simpson v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1917)
- Powell v. Susanna Powell, 77 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1919)
- Hayes v. Hayes, 86 Fla. 350 (Fla. 1923)
- Hickson v. Hickson, 54 Fla. 556 (Fla. 1907)