ESTELLE ROGERS, APPELLANT,
v.
CECIL G. ROGERS, 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 testimony concerning grounds for divorce was sufficiently corroborated to support the decree.
The appellant-wife counterclaimed for alimony in a divorce suit. The appellee-husband was awarded a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty. The sol…
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 As Grounds For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant-wife was defendant in a divorce suit, wherein she counterclaimed for alimony unconnected with divorce under § 65.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the testimony concerning grounds for divorce was sufficiently corroborated.
The appellee-husband was awarded a divorce “* * * upon the ground of extreme cruelty.” We recognize the rule oftentimes stated by the Supreme Court, and followed by this court in Lentz v. Lentz, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 815, that the uncorroborated testimony of a plaintiff in a divorce action, without more, is not sufficient to support a valid decree of divorce. Further, this case points out that the sufficiency of the corroboration is determined by the particular circumstances of the individual case.
We think that the facts exposed in this record are sufficiently corroborated. That conduct which will amount to extreme cruelty by one spouse toward the other must depend upon the facts of each case. Baldwin v. Baldwin, 151 Fla. 341, 9 So.2d 717.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grau v. Grau, 25 Fla. Supp. 110 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1965)…his charge of cruelty. Items (1) and (2) were uncorroborated as required by law, Dean v. Dean (1924), 87 Fla. 242, 99 So. 816; Morgan v. Morgan (1949), Fla., 40 So. 2d 778; Holmes v. Holmes (1957), Fla., 95 So. 2d 593; Rogers v. Rogers (1962), Fla., 139 So. 2d 752; Fisher v. Fisher (1961), Fla., supra, and were denied by the husband. The husband’s explanation of the telephone call to the unidentified woman was that she was a mutual friend of the parties, familiar with the problems he was experiencing with re…
Authorities Cited
- Baldwin v. Baldwin, 151 Fla. 341 (Fla. 1942)
- Lentz v. Lentz, 120 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)