EDITH S. MASON, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILLIP LEE MASON, 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.
In this divorce appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's divorce decree based on extreme cruelty and award of custody and support to the wife-appellant, but vacated an injunction prohibiting the wife from communicating with her ex-husband or his military superiors, finding it would render her unable to enforce the support order.
The court affirmed that sufficient evidence supported the divorce decree based on extreme cruelty, but held that the injunction was improper because it would prevent the wife from enforcing the support order and would leave her without recourse if the husband failed to provide support.
“If appellee fails to provide support as ordered in the decree, appellant would be helpless in attempting to enforce that part of tire decree under the terms of the injunction.”
Establishes why the injunction was improper—it prevented the wife from enforcing her support rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee husband, a career Army officer stationed in Germany, was granted a divorce from appellant wife on grounds of extreme cruelty. The trial court…
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 Modification Of Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee husband was granted a divorce based on the grounds of extreme cruelty. Appellant wife was given custody of the children, support money for said children, and enjoined from taking certain actions which will be more fully explained hereafter. It is from this decree that this appeal is taken.
Appellant first contends that the evidence is insufficient to support any ground for divorce. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of the chancellor. See Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663.
*578Appellant further contends that the following portion of the final decree is error:
“That the defendant, Edith S. Mason, be and she is hereby enjoined and restrained until the further order of this court from (1) communicating by spoken or written word, by letter, telegram, cablegram, or otherwise, with the plaintiff, Phillip Lee Mason and (2) communicating by spoken or written word, by letter, telegram, cablegram or otherwise, with the superior officers of the plaintiff, Phillip Lee Mason, or with any officials of the War Department of the United States of America about the conduct of the plaintiff, Phillip Lee Mason, or concerning his legal obligations to her and/or his children.”
Appellant’s contention as to this part of the decree is well taken.
Appellee is a career officer in the United States Army, now stationed in Germany. If appellee fails to provide support as ordered in the decree, appellant would be helpless in attempting to enforce that part of tire decree under the terms of the injunction. The court would be unable to give her any assistance either. Her only recourse would be to those whom she has been precluded from contacting, namely appellee or his superior officers. Of course if such communications were to be of a slanderous tenor, the court has authority to correct such situations. See Selinsky v. Selinsky, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 24.
The final decree entered in this cause by the trial court is hereby modified by striking paragraph 9 therefrom; otherwise the decree appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., J., concurs
PEARSON, Acting Chief Judge, dissents.
(dissenting) .
I respectfully dissent from the decision reached by the majority that the evidence was sufficient to support the decree granting a divorce to the appellee-husband. The record reveals that the appellee suffered an adverse decree on August 8, 1957, upon his first complaint for divorce. The husband’s complaint in the instant action was filed August 21, 1958. The parties did not live together in the interim. The ground relied upon, in the cause appealed, was extreme cruelty. The evidence relied upon to establish this ground consisted of the wife’s attempts by letter to collect money due for the support of the children. The plaintiff characterized these letters as “vilification”; but the letters were not introduced, and the vilification was denied. I would hold that the ground for divorce-was not proved.
PEARSON, Acting Chief Judge
(dissenting) .
I respectfully dissent from the decision reached by the majority that the evidence was sufficient to support the decree granting a divorce to the appellee-husband. The record reveals that the appellee suffered an adverse decree on August 8, 1957, upon his first complaint for divorce. The husband’s complaint in the instant action was filed August 21, 1958. The parties did not live together in the interim. The ground relied upon, in the cause appealed, was extreme cruelty. The evidence relied upon to establish this ground consisted of the wife’s attempts by letter to collect money due for the support of the children. The plaintiff characterized these letters as “vilification”; but the letters were not introduced, and the vilification was denied. I would hold that the ground for divorce-was not proved.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, 96 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Selinsky v. Selinsky, 62 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1952)