OLGA F. HOWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
NATHANIEL W. HOWELL, 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.
A divorce decree must first determine which party prevails before addressing alimony and suit money.
The chancellor entered a decree divorcing the parties without determining which party should prevail in the suit.…
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.
After hearing the testimony and considering it in the light of the issues formed by the complaint and answer, the chancellor entered a decree divorcing the parties without determining which party should prevail in the suit.
Such procedure is contrary to our pronouncements in Sahler v. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206, 17 So.2d 105, and Macfadden v. Macfadden, 157 Fla. 477, 26 So.2d 502, and is not approved. The reasons for the present position are recorded in both cases and need not be repeated here.
The holding in these decisions was re-announced by the court in the case of Friedman v. Friedman, Fla., 100 So.2d 167, and anything appearing to the contrary in Williamson v. Williamson, 153 Fla. 357, 14 So.2d 712, was rescinded.
In consequence of the pronouncements in the three cases, the decree in the instant case is reversed with directions to decide which, if either, party should be the victor and then, if a divorce is granted one of them, to decide the questions involving alimony and suit money. Our decision on the propriety of the amounts already fixed for these purposes is reserved until a decree in accordance with these directions is entered.
Reversed.
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Batteiger v. Batteiger, 109 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…he plaintiff. Two letters were filed simultaneously with the final decree. One was written by the plaintiff’s attorney, addressed to the chancellor, and dated April 8, 1958. The letter stated that because of the case of Howell v. Howell, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 170, “the court should grant the divorce specifically to one or the other party.” The writer contended that this case also stood for the proposition that the wife should be awarded the home. The other letter was written by defendant’s attorney, address…1 / 2
-
Shannon v. Shannon, 101 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…1071, 138 So. 796, 82 A.L.R. 537; Welsh v. Welsh, 160 Fla. 380, 35 So. 2d 6. . 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 210. . Heath v. Heath, supra, note 2; Foreman v. Foreman, supra, note 1. . Dockery v. Dockery, Fla.1949, 43 So. 2d 460; Howell v. Howell, Fla., 100 So. 2d 170.…
-
Howell v. Howell, 109 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1959)…s judicial discretion when such award is considered along with' the gifts made to the wife during the relatively short period of this marriage.4 Affirmed. TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., concur. . Howell v. Howell, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 170, 171. . Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Kulhanjian, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 896. . At the time of the marriage the wife was 38, the husband 63. There were no children. . Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 367.…
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
- Meta A. Sahler v. Eli I. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1944)
- Williamson v. Williamson, 153 Fla. 357 (Fla. 1943)
- Friedman v. Orrie M. Friedman, 100 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1958)
- MacFadden v. Bernarr MacFadden, 157 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1946)