MARGARET ELIZABETH BELL
v.
JOHN W. BELL
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.
John W. Bell sought a divorce from Margaret Elizabeth Bell based on her willful, obstinate, and continued desertion for over one year. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree, finding substantial evidence of desertion after rejecting the defendant's affirmative defense of the husband's adultery.
The Court affirmed the divorce decree, finding substantial evidence to support the finding of desertion. The wife's refusal to move with her husband to establish a separate household, coupled with her express statements that she would not do so, constituted willful and obstinate desertion justifying divorce. The wife's allegations of adultery were unsupported by evidence and therefore did not defeat the divorce action.
“complainant requested defendant to move with him from the farm to a house in Sarasota where they could live apart from other people; that the defendant refused to concede to this request and complainant then moved into Sarasota and continued to live there while defendant continued to live separate and apart from him”
Establishes the husband's request for relocation, the wife's refusal, and the resulting separation that constituted desertion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were living together on a farm near Sarasota with the husband's brother, the brother's son, and the wife's mother. The husband requested t…
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 Adultery cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case appellee filed his' bill of complaint to procure divorce from appellant upon the ground of wilful, obstinate and continued desertion of the complainant by the defendant for a period of one year prior to the institution of suit.
, The defendant filed answer and then amended answer in which she admitted that she had refused to live with the complainant for more than a year prior to institution of the suit, but alleged that her action in that regard was justified because of the fact that the complainant had been guilty of adultery with a woman by the name of Callie John on and during a certain trip to Hot Springs, Arkansas, which trip was participated in by Callie John, her husband, Chris John, and the complainant, John Bell.
The record shows that more than a year prior to the filing of the bill for divorce complainant and defendant were living together as man and wife on a farm near Sarasota; that complainant’s brother lived in the house with complain*101ant and defendant, as did also the defendant’s mother, and that complainant requested defendant to move with him from the farm to a house in Sarasota where they could live .apart from other people; that the defendant refused to concede to this request and complainant then moved into Sarasota and continued to live there while defendant continued to live separate and apart from him in a house occupied by complainant’s brother, his' (the brother’s) young son and defendant’s mother; that she stated on numerous occasions that she would not move away from the home on the farm with the complainant.
The evidence fails to establish the charge of infidelity made by the defendant in her answer.
There is, therefore, in the record substantial evidence to support the decree of divorce appealed from, under the opinions and judgments in the cases of Walker v. Walker, 64 Fla. 536, 59 Sou. 898; and Hudson v. Hudson, 59 Fla. 529, 51 Sou. 857, 138 Am. St. Rep. 141. So the decree should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hudson v. Hudson, 59 Fla. 529 (Fla. 1910)
- Walker v. Walker, 64 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1912)