EVELYN W. CLUTTER, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT CLUTTER, 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 complaint stated a cause of action for extreme cruelty, the evidence was sufficient with adequate corroboration, and the alimony award was not an abuse of discretion.
The wife appealed a final divorce decree, arguing the complaint was insufficient, the findings of fact were erroneous, and the alimony award was an ab…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, wife, appeals a final decree of divorce. She urges, first that the complaint fails to state a cause of action; second, that the findings of fact made by the chancellor are clearly erroneous, and third, that the failure to grant alimony of more than $400 per month was an abuse of discretion.
We hold that the complaint stated a cause of action in that it alleged a course of conduct which the chancellor could find constituted extreme cruelty because it rendered further cohabitation intolerable and impaired plaintiff’s health. Roebling v. Roebling, 119 Fla. 768, 161 So. 715 (1935); Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260, 193 So. 65 (1940) ; Lentz v. Lentz, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 815.
The second ground presented goes to the sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant’s attack is two-fold in that she urges (a) that the evidence was patently manufactured and (b) that there was not sufficient corroboration. As to the argument that the evidence was given undue weight by the court, we are committed to the rule that the weight of the evidence is a matter for the trier of fact. Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663. Upon the argument that there was not sufficient corroboration, we hold that the corroboration is sufficient in view of the fact that this was a strenuously contested proceeding and in such cases corroboration of every element is not required. Dings v. Dings, Fla. App.1964, 161 So.2d 227.
Appellant’s third point is directed to the sufficiency of alimony. This is a matter particularly within the discretion of the trial judge. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671. In this instance there has been no showing of an abuse of discretion by the chancellor. The main thrust of appellant’s argument is her prospect of large medical bills. In the event that her health is such that unusual doctors’ bills are in*546curred, such a change in circumstances would be the basis for an application to the trial court, pursuant to § 65.15, Fla.Stat. 1963, F.S.A., for a modification of alimony.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…tness. We do not believe this presumption has been overcome in the instant case and for these reasons the decree is affirmed. Bagwell v. Bagwell, 153 Fla. 471, 14 So. 2d 841 (1943); Grossman v. Grossman, 90 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1956); Clutter v. Clutter, 171 So. 2d 544 (D.C.A.Fla.1965). LILES, Acting C. J, PIERCE, J., and FLYNN, ROGER D., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
DuVERNOY v. DuVERNOY, 202 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…For the reasons and upon the authorities hereinabove mentioned the decree appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur. . F.S. § 65.15, F.S.A.; Simon v. Simon (Fla.App.1963), 155 So. 2d 849; Clutter v. Clutter (Fla.App.1965), 171 So. 2d 544. . Florida Family Law — The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education — Alimony, Monetary and Property Belief Available, p. 961. . Schraner v. Schraner (Fla.App.1959), 110 So. 2d 33, 35. . Kirby v. Kirby (Ma.App.1959), 111 So. 2d 299, 301. . Dings…
-
Elisabeth P. Hillyard v. Hillyard, 212 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…the rule has been minimized, however, by the sensible position taken by the courts of this state that corroboration need only be slight in contested divorce cases. Bradford v. Bradford, Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 344; Clutter v. Clutter, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 544; Dings v. Dings, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 227. The corroboration rule is predicated upon two ancient and independent doctrines. The first, born of English ecclesiastical law provided that the uncorroborated confession of a divorce respondent was in…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pross v. Pross, 72 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1954)
- Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1940)
- Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, 96 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Dings v. Gwladys H. Dings, 161 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Roebling v. Roebling, 119 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1935)
- Lentz v. Lentz, 120 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)