WILLIE LEE SIMMONS
v.
PAUL SIMMONS

Fla. | 1936-01-06
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, Brown, Bueord and Davis, J. J., concur.
122 Fla. 325 Florida Supreme Court (1936) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 165 So. 45
Cited by 11 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this divorce case, the husband successfully proved adultery against the wife, while the wife proved extreme cruelty against the husband. Both were granted divorces on their respective grounds. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of alimony and cancellation of a property deed, but reversed and remanded for determination of reasonable suit money and solicitor's fees for the wife's counsel.


Holding

The court affirmed the trial court's grant of divorce to the husband, denial of cancellation of the conveyance, and denial of alimony. However, the court reversed the denial of reasonable suit money and solicitor's fees, finding the wife's counsel entitled to reasonable compensation to be paid by the husband.


Key Quotes

“There is substantial evidence showing the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit and sufficient evidence to sustain the findings and the decree in granting a divorce to the husband, in denying a cancellation of the conveyance referred to in the answer and "counter claim" and in denying alimony to the wife.”

Establishes the court's review standard and affirmance of the trial court's main holdings regarding divorce, property, 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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The husband filed for divorce alleging the wife's adultery and sought custody of their minor daughter. The wife denied adultery but counterclaimed all…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Whitfield, C. J.

Whitfield, C. J.

In this case the husband brought a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery of the wife. The amended bill of complaint alleges that complainant “is a resident and citizen of the State of Florida, and has been such for more than two years next prior to the filing of this amended bill of complaint.” The custody of a minor daughter was prayed for by complainant. There are statements of fact which tend to support the allegation “that the defendant has been guilty of adultery.” A motion to dismiss the amended bill of complaint for lack of sufficient *326allegations to show jurisdiction and a ground for divorce was properly denied as also was a motion to strike portions of the amended bill of complaint.

The wife by answer denied the allegations against her, and for a divorce against the husband alleged adultery, extreme cruelty and habitual intemperance, and by “counter claim” sought, on the ground of duress, the cancellation of a deed conveying property to complainant’s mother, and an accounting for the property in which defendant claims dower rights. The grantee in the conveyance referred to was made a defendant in the “counter claim.” Defendant wife upon various averments prayed for a divorce, for the custody of the minor daughter, for a cancellation of the conveyance, for temporary and permanent alimony, suit money and counsel fees.

The court denied a motion to dismiss the “counter claim”; and granted a motion to strike a part of the husband’s answer averring condonation of the wife’s charge of adultery against the husband.

Upon testimony taken by the chancellor he made specific findings that the husband had proven his charge of adultery of the wife; that the wife had not proven her charges of adultery, habitual intemperance, or desertion, but had proven her charge of extreme cruelty against the husband; that the wife had not proven her counter claim; that the wife is entitled to the custody of the minor daughter and that the wife “is without means of support, property or income.”

By decree the husband was granted a divorce for adultery of the wife; the wife was granted a divorce for extreme cruelty of the husband; the custody of the minor daughter was awarded to her mother “until the further order of the court”; cancellation of the conveyance made to the husband’s mother was denied; alimony, suit money and counsel *327fees were denied; costs of the proceedings were taxed against the husband.

An appeal was taken to portions of the final decree granting a divorce to the husband, denying cancellation of the conveyance to the husband’s mother and denying alimony, suit money and solicitor’s fees.

It is not made to appear that any material or prejudicial error was committed in the interlocutory proceedings of which the appellant can justly complain. There is substantial evidence showing the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit and sufficient evidence to sustain the findings and the decree in granting a divorce to the husband, in denying a cancellation of the conveyance referred to in the answer and “counter claim” and in denying alimony to the wife. The custody of the minor daughter is subject to the further order of the court; and the support of such minor may be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.

A consideration of the entire record leads to a determination that the portions of the final decree appealed from should be and are. affirmed, except that portion denying reasonable suit money and solicitor’s fee which said last mentioned portion of the final decree is reversed and the cause is remanded for appropriate proceedings to ascertain, determine and adjudicate reasonable suit money and for a reasonable solicitor’s fee for the wife’s counsel to be adjudicated against and paid by the husband, the appellee, Paul Simmons. The costs of this appeal shall be taxed against the said appellee.

It is so ordered.

Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, Brown, Bueord and Davis, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Doran v. Doran, 212 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
    …ford v. Belford, supra; Sayward v. Sayward, Fla.1949, 43 So. 2d 865; Frye v. Frye, supra. . Supra, note 3. . Wilner v. Wilner, Fla.App.,1964, 167 So. 2d 234; In the Interest of E. P., Jr., Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 801. . Simmons v. Simmons, 1936, 122 Fla. 325, 165 So. 45; Stern v. Stern, Fla.3 951, 50 So. 2d 119.…
  • Foreman v. Foreman, 40 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1949)
    …th directions to allow the *Page 561 appellant a just portion of the property in question. A cross-assignment of error questions the award to the wife of an attorney's fee because of her adulterous guilt. This was not error. See Simmons v. Simmons, 122 Fla. 325, 165 So. 45. The appellant has petitioned this court to allow a reasonable fee for prosecuting her appeal in this court. We grant her petition and allow a fee of $125.00 together with the cost of this appeal. The decree is reversed for appropriate…
  • Chandler v. Chandler, 230 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
    …491, 1 So. 2d 480; Cowan v. Cowan, Fla.1941, 147 Fla. 473, 2 So. 2d 869; Eakin v. Eakin, Fla.1958, 99 So. 2d 854. We affirm the trial court’s award of custody of the minor children to the wife-appellee on the basis of Simmons v. Simmons, Fla. 1936, 122 Fla. 325, 165 So. 45; Bennett v. Bennett, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 588; McAnespie v. McAnespie, Fla.App. 1967, 200 So. 2d 606; Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App. 1967, 205 So. 2d 341. We therefore reverse the trial judge in his finding that there was legal cond…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw