JACK G. TUCKFIELD, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET PATRICK TUCKFIELD, 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 to dismiss a divorce complaint. The court found no reason to reverse the chancellor's ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove grounds for divorce.
No, the plaintiff failed to prove grounds for divorce.
“The chancellor heard the testimony of the parties on the issues raised by the complaint and answer and entered a final decree dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove, grounds for divorce.”
This quote establishes the lower court's finding and the basis for its dismissal of the divorce complaint.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sued for divorce, alleging constructive desertion by the appellee, whose conduct allegedly caused him to leave the marital home and rema…
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 Grounds For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant sued appellee for divorce on the ground that she was guilty of constructive desertion in that her conduct caused him to move from' the marital home, and that he has remained away continually since 1962.
The chancellor heard the testimony of the parties on the issues raised by the complaint and answer and entered a final decree dis- • missing the complaint with prejudice on the ground that the plaintiff'failed to prove, grounds for divorce. Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing which was denied. It is ' from the decree and order that plaintiff appeals.
We have carefully examined the record and briefs in this case and found no reason to reverse the chancellor. Therefore the decree and order appealed are affirmed. See Shippey v. Shippey, 97 Fla. 881, 122 So. 272 (1929); Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 40.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sebastian v. THE City of Miami (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Shippey v. Shippey, 97 Fla. 881 (Fla. 1929)