JOHN TOMAINO, APPELLANT
v.
DAISY C. MARTZ, A/K/A DAISY C. TOMAINO, 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 lower court's decision granting a divorce, denying an annulment, and awarding alimony and attorney fees. The court found sufficient evidence to support the chancellor's findings and no abuse of discretion in the financial awards.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the divorce decree and denial of annulment. No, the alimony and attorney fees awards were within the chancellor's discretion and supported by the evidence.
“Having considered the record, briefs and arguments, we conclude that the marital status of the parties was established and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the chancellor's decree that the equities were with the wife and that she was entitled to a divorce and to alimony.”
This quote establishes the court's conclusion that the evidence supported the lower court's findings regarding the divorce and alimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband filed for annulment, and the wife counterclaimed for divorce based on extreme cruelty. The chancellor granted the divorce, denied the annu…
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 Lump Sum Award cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed a suit for annulment of marriage. The defendant wife ■counterclaimed for divorce charging extreme cruelty. The chancellor tried the •cause and found the equities were with the •defendant. His decree denied the plaintiff’s suit for annulment, granted the wife a •divorce, determined the property rights between the parties, granted alimony to the wife in the form of a lump sum award plus the right to receive and retain net income from certain rental properties owned by the •parties and allowed the wife $1,000 for attorney fees. The appellant challenges the rulings denying annulment and decreeing a divorce, and earnestly contends the alimony .awards were unjustified and excessive, and also contests the fee allowance. The cause was not without its complications on the facts, but it would serve no useful purpose to restate them in detail here. Having considered the record, briefs and arguments, we conclude that the marital status of the parties was established and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the chancellor’s decree that the equities were with the wife and that she was entitled to a divorce and to alimony. The allowances of alimony and attorney fees were within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor, and his rulings on those matters are supported by the evidence. The burden on the appellant to show an abuse of discretion with regard to such allowances was not met. Accordingly the decree appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rebia Gladys Sharpe v. Sharpe, 267 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ion of the amount of alimony in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Singer v. Singer, Fla.App.1972, 3rd D.C.A., 262 So. 2d 731, filed May 30, 1972; Mufson v. Mufson, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 110; Tomaino v. Martz, Fla.App.1965, 170 So. 2d 468. However, we think that such a showing appears upon the undisputed facts of this record. Cf. Preston v. Preston, Fla. App.1968, 216 So. 2d 31; Massey v. Massey, Fla.App. 1967, 205 So. 2d 1; Klein v. Klein, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So. 2d 205. The record e…
-
Lovie Royal v. Royal, 263 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ion of the amount of alimony in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Singer v. Singer, Fla.App.1972, 3rd D.C.A., 262 So. 2d 731, filed May 30, 1972; Mufson v. Mufson, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 110; Tomaino v. Martz, Fla.App.1965, 170 So. 2d 468. However, we think that such a showing appears upon the undisputed facts of this record. Cf. Preston v. Preston, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 31; Massey v. Massey, Fla.App.1967, 205 So. 2d 1; Klein v. Klein, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 205. The record esta…
-
Dores R. Fishman v. Fishman, 245 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…the chancellor, and his rulings on the matter are supported by the evidence. The burden on the appellant to show an abuse of discretion in that matter was not met. French v. French, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 584, 585; Tomaino v. Martz, Fla.App.1965, 170 So. 2d 468, 469; Ortiz v. Ortiz, Fla. App.1968, 211 So. 2d 243; and Frischkorn v. Frischkorn, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 380. See generally § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. [*259] Accordingly, the portion of the decree establishing the lump sum alimony in the amount o…