ANNIE STONEBURG
v.
J. A. STONEBURG
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 denied a wife's request for suit money on appeal, finding that a substantial lump sum allowance she had already received and accepted from her husband pending the divorce appeal was sufficient.
No, the appellant is not entitled to further allowance of moneys to be paid to her pending appeal. The previous denial of her petition is adhered to.
“it appearing that appellant has been paid by appellee a large sum of money incidental to the divorce decree appealed from, as and for a lump sum allowance for her benefit, which sum of money she has accepted and is enjoying under the decree, it seems to the Court that a further allowance of moneys to be paid to appellant pending appeal is not warranted at this time”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for denying the request for additional suit money.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Annie Stoneburg, appealed a divorce decree. She petitioned the court for an order requiring the appellee, J. A. Stoneburg, to pay the c…
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.
On Rehearing as to Order Denying Allowance of Suit Money on Appeal.
This cause coming on to be heard upon rehearing of appellant’s petition for an order requiring the appellee to pay the costs of preparing the transcript of the record on appeal, together with the clerk’s filing fee, and the Court having reheard and reconsidered the appellant’s application and it appearing that appellant has been paid by appellee a large sum of money incidental to the divorce decree appealed from, as and for a lump sum allowance for her benefit, which sum of money she has accepted and is enjoying under the decree, it seems to the Court that a further allowance of moneys to be paid to appellant pending appeal is not warranted at this time; therefore, the previous denial of appellant’s petition is adhered to on this rehearing, with leave of appellant to file transcript of the record herein at her own expense within sixty days from the date of this order. It is ordered accordingly.
*316Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J-. J., concur.
. Brown,- J., abs'ent and not participating because of illness.