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.
The court held that the evidence supported the trial court's findings of extreme cruelty and that the alimony award was not an abuse of discretion.
Following a prior appeal, the trial court entered a decree finding the wife guilty of extreme cruelty and awarding permanent alimony. The wife appeale…
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 Extreme Cruelty cases and more on FLexlaw
When this case first came here on appeal from the final decree, we sent it back to the trial court 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.” 1 In compliance with our mandate the trial court entered its decree that the equities were with the husband and that the wife had been guilty of extreme cruelty. From this latter decree the wife appeals,2 presenting two questions (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the chancellor that the wife had been guilty of extreme cruelty and (2) the sufficiency of the award of permanent alimony.
No useful purpose would be served by an extended opinion in this case. The principles of law involved have long since been settled by numerous decisions of this Court. The conclusions reached by the chancellor that the wife had been guilty of extreme cruelty to the husband during the two years and eight months they lived together are supported by competent substantial evidence the legal effect of which he properly construed.3 Nor can we hold that the trial court’s determination of the amount of permanent alimony was an abuse of his 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gertrude E. Krieger v. Krieger, 344 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…fe being youthful, in good health, capable of employment, and the marriage terminating after a short period of time. E. g., McCarter v. McCarter, 131 Fla. 561, 179 So. 760 (1938); Golembeski v. Golembeski, 57 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1952); Howell v. Howell, 109 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1959). Since Phinney, the common thread running throughout all the Florida Supreme Court cases on the subject is the overriding concern by the court of the relative positions of the parties: the needs of the wife and the financial ability of th…
Authorities Cited
- Kahn v. Kahn, 78 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1955)
- Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc., 96 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1957)
- Howell v. Howell, 100 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1958)