DOROTHY LOUELLA HOLMES, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES EDWARD HOLMES, 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 a divorce decree granted by the trial court, holding that the divorce could not be granted solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff and that the trial court lacked authority to order the sale and distribution of jointly-owned property without proper pleading or authorization.
A final divorce decree cannot be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of one party alone. Additionally, the trial court exceeded its authority by ordering the sale of jointly-owned property without such relief being sought in the pleadings or evidence supporting it.
“a final decree of divorce cannot be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of one of the parties”
Establishes the core holding that corroborating evidence is required for divorce decrees in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Edward Holmes sued Dorothy Louella Holmes for divorce based on extreme cruelty. The defendant denied the allegations and cross-claimed for sep…
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 Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Chief Justice.
Charles Edward Holmes sued Dorothy Louella Holmes for divorce alleging extreme cruelty. Defendant answered denying the material allegations of the complaint, cross-claimed for separate maintenance and prayed that the premises known as 2550 N. W. 152nd Terrace, Miami, owned jointly by them be decreed to be hers. At final hearing the plaintiff was granted a divorce, custody of their minor child was granted to defendant and plaintiff was required to contribute $65 per month for its support. Thereafter the premises above described were ordered sold for $500 over the first mortgage and from the purchase price all commissions, brokerage costs, mortgage payments, including an attorney’s fee of $150 for defendant’s attorney and closing costs be deducted and if there be anything left, it be paid to plaintiff. This appeal is from the decree so entered.
The decree appealed from must be reversed because (1) this court is committed to the doctrine that a final decree of divorce cannot be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of one of the parties. Dean v. Dean, 87 Fla. 242, 99 So. 816; Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196, 125 So. 694; Homan v. Homan, 144 Fla. 371, 198 So. 20; Garland v. Garland, 158 Fla. 643, 29 So. 2d 693; Martin v. Martin, Fla., 66 So. 2d 268; Morgan v. Morgan, Fla., 40 So. 2d 778. Aside from the dearth of corroborating evidence to support the decree of divorce, it appears that if the parties are as arbitrary and devoid of responsibility one to the other as their testimony shows them to be, the marital vows must have fallen on parched earth where there was no probability of germination or development into a congenial family relation. (2) It further appears that the chancellor let go his sympathy or imagination without prayer, importunity or suggestion in the complaint to support it and ordered the property owned by the parties by the entireties sold and the proceeds less expenses distributed to the plaintiff. We find nothing in the pleadings or the proof authorizing such a sale and distribution.
The decree appealed from is accordingly reversed with directions to vacate and set aside the decree of divorce and the decree ordering sale of the premises.
Reversed.
THOMAS, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dworkis v. Dworkis, 111 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…valid decree [*74] of divorce. Dean v. Dean, 1924, 87 Fla. 242, 99 So. 816; Morgan v. Morgan, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 778; Martin v. Martin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 268; Garland v. Garland, 1947, 158 Fla. 643, 29 So. 2d 693, and Holmes v. Holmes, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 593. What will amount to a sufficient corroboration of the cause of action must be determined by the circumstances of each case. * . * * ” Martin v. Martin, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So. 2d 837, 839. Regarding cruelty, in addition to finding certain acts whic…
-
Martin v. Martin, 102 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…port a valid decree of divorce. Dean v. Dean, 1924, 87 Fla. 242, 99 So. 816; Morgan v. Morgan, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 778; Martin v. Martin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 268; Garland v. Garland, 1947, 158 Fla. 643, 29 So. 2d 693, and Holmes v. Holmes, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 593. What will amount to a sufficient corroboration of the cause of action must be determined by the circumstances of each case. Martin v. Martin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 268. However, it is not required to corroborate every detail of the testimony of the p…
-
Lentz v. Lentz, 120 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…port a valid decree of divorce. Dean v. Dean, 1924, 87 Fla. 242, 99 So. 816; Morgan v. Morgan, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 778; Martin v. Martin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 268; Garland v. Garland, 1947, 158 Fla. 643, 29 So. 2d 693, and Holmes v. Holmes, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 593. What will amount to a sufficient corroboration of the cause of action must be determined by the circumstances of each case. Martin v. Martin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 268. However, it is not required to corroborate every detail of the testimony of the p…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNeil v. Jenkins-McNeil (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Frederic G. Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196 (Fla. 1929)
- Delos J. Dean v. Dean, 87 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1924)
- Garland v. Claud Garland, JR., 158 Fla. 643 (Fla. 1947)
- Morgan v. Morgan, 40 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1949)
- Kaplan v. Hamilton, 66 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1953)
- Martin v. Martin, 66 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1953)
- Bowman v. Liebman, 144 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1940)
- Homan v. Homan, 144 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1940)