MARION I. RODDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN D. RODDA, 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 appellate court affirmed a divorce decree, finding that the wife failed to prove her own claims and that the husband's counterclaim for extreme cruelty was sufficiently supported by evidence. The court also rejected the wife's argument that the husband was required to seek reconciliation.
No, the trial court did not err. The wife presented no evidence to support her complaint, and there was sufficient evidence to support the husband's counterclaim. The requirement to seek reconciliation does not apply to grounds of extreme cruelty and, even if it did, the husband made efforts to reconcile.
“There is substantial, competent evidence to support the granting of a divorce to the appellee on his counterclaim and, with such in the record, the appellant has failed to demonstrate error.”
Establishes the court's finding that the husband's grounds for divorce were adequately proven.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife appealed a final divorce decree that granted the husband a divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty, awarded custody of the children to the wife…
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, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals from a final decree of devorce in which the chancellor awarded a divorce to the appellee on his counterclaim alleging extreme cruelty, and awarded the wife the custody of the minor children of the parties, together with support and alimony. She urges error in the entry of the final decree in three particulars: First;-that the court erred because the husband failed to seek a reconciliation; second, that he failed to support the allegations of his counterclaim and, third, that she was entitled to a decree on her original complaint.
Taking the points in inverse order, it appears from the final decree that the wife offered no testimony and proofs to support her complaint and, therefore, the action of the chancellor was correct in denying her relief. See: Straughter v. Straughter, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 499; Martin v. Martin, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 837. There is substantial, competent evidence to support the granting of a divorce to the appellee on his counterclaim and, with such in the record, the appellant has failed to demonstrate error. See: Ball v. Ball, 160 Fla. 601, 36 So.2d 172; Stoller v. Jaffe, Fla.*260App.1960, 125 So.2d 310. As to the first error urged [to wit: the burden on the husband to seek a reconciliation], the case cited as authority for the proposition by the ap-pellee [Brickman v. Brickman, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 685] was one wherein the grounds upon which a divorce was sought by the husband was desertion; whereas in the instant case the ground is extreme cruelty. The principle requiring- the husband to seek a reconciliation when attempting to secure a divorce upon the statutory ground of desertion is valid, but is not applicable when the ground is other than desertion. Furthermore, even if such was required, it appears from the record that the husband did in fact make an effort to discuss the marital differences and to settle or reconcile same. Therefore, no error having been made to appear, the final decree here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stoller v. Jaffe, 125 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Ball v. Ball, 160 Fla. 601 (Fla. 1948)
- Martin v. Martin, 102 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Riddle v. State, 160 Fla. 652 (Fla. 1948)
- Straughter v. Straughter, 87 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1956)
- Brickman v. Brickman, 64 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1953)