ROBERT L. PERINE, APPELLANT,
v.
JANE M. PERINE, 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.
This case reviews a divorce decree where the husband appealed the court's decision to award jointly owned property and bearer securities to the wife. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding no error in the chancellor's findings.
No, the chancellor did not err in awarding the jointly owned property and bearer securities to the wife. The court found no error in the adjudication based on the facts presented.
“The only error preserved for review is the adjudication by the chancellor that certain jointly owned property of the parties and certain "bearer" securities belong to the wife.”
This quote defines the specific issue brought before the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a divorce proceeding, the chancellor adjudicated that certain jointly owned property and bearer securities belonged to the wife. The husband ap…
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.
By this appeal the appellant, defendant-husband in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final decree entered in a divorce proceeding. The only error preserved for review is the adjudication by the chancellor that certain jointly owned property of the parties and certain “bearer” securities belong to the wife.
The chancellor having found that the appellant at no time contributed any support to the family during the 14 years’ existence of the marriage; having found that the source of monies from which the acquisition of the assets was made possible came solely '.from the separate estate of the wife; we find no error in those features of the final decree here under review. See: Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663;. Allen v. Allen, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 355; McFarland v. McFarland, Fla.App. 1961, 131 So.2d 749; Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 24; Witlin v. Witlin, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 70; 17 Fla.Jur., Husband and Wife, §§ 43, 44, 45.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wollman v. Wollman, 235 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…7 So. 2d 223 (1944); Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So. 2d 727 (1941); Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796 (1932); Green v. Green, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 112; Volpe v. Volpe, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 534; Perine v. Perine, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 71; Wood v. Wood, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 879; and 10 Fla.Jur. Divorce, Etc., § 208. Appellant’s argument for reversal on this point is insufficient. Appellant husband argues that error was made in the award of attorneys’ fees by the trial court for…
Authorities Cited
- Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1941)
- Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, 96 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Agatha F. Allen v. Allen, 123 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 153 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Witlin v. Witlin, 153 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- McFARLAND v. McFARLAND, 131 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)