C. W. JOHNSON
v.
ANNIE SUE JOHNSON
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree awarding alimony to a wife, finding that the husband had voluntarily agreed to the alimony and that the relevant statute barring alimony for an adulterous wife did not apply. The court emphasized the validity of voluntary alimony agreements in Florida.
Yes, the chancellor had the power to award alimony. The husband's voluntary agreement to the alimony award made it valid, and the statute barring alimony for an adulterous wife was not applicable as adultery was not an issue in this case.
“The allowance of alimony was by voluntary agreement of the appellant.”
Establishes the basis for the court's decision regarding the validity of the alimony award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee (wife) was granted a divorce from the appellant (husband) due to the wife's delinquency. The final decree included an award of $25 per mo…
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 Alimony Award cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree awarding a divorce and twenty-five dollars per month alimony to the appellee, the appeal being limited to that part of the final decree awarding alimony.
The qestion argued is whether or not the chancellor had the power to award alimony in a suit for divorce, the latter. *667having been granted because of delinquency charged against the wife.
The appellant contends that the chancellor had no such power and relies on Section 3195 Revised General Statutes of 1920, Section 4987, Compiled General Laws of 1927. The concluding part of the latter statute barring alimony and relied on by appellant applies only to an “adulterous wife” but there being río charge of adultery involved in this case, the statute has no application.
The record discloses that the allowance of alimony was by voluntary agreement of the appellant. Such agreements are recognized in this state. Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516, 114 So. 371. Such agreements are also approved by Chapter 16780, Acts of 1935, and may be modified from • time to time in the manner provided in said Act when the circumstances of the parties warrant.
We are not confronted with a prayer for modification. No reason therefor is shown and assuming but not deciding that the bill of complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action, we find no reason to reverse the chancellor so his decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., and Davis, J., concur specially.
(concurring). — When a wife is the offender, even though not an adulteress, her misconduct in committing a cause for divorce forfeits her right to obtain alimony, except under extraordinary circumstances where she has materially contributed to the husband’s estate. Phinney v. Phinney, 77 Fla. 850, 82 Sou. Rep. 357; Nolen v. Nolen, 121 Fla. 130, 163 Sou. Rep. 401. This-opinion affirming alimony in the case • should not be construed as departing *668from our previous holdings on the subject. Here the husband stipulated for the allowance.
Ellis, C. J., concurs.
Davis, J.
(concurring). — When a wife is the offender, even though not an adulteress, her misconduct in committing a cause for divorce forfeits her right to obtain alimony, except under extraordinary circumstances where she has materially contributed to the husband’s estate. Phinney v. Phinney, 77 Fla. 850, 82 Sou. Rep. 357; Nolen v. Nolen, 121 Fla. 130, 163 Sou. Rep. 401. This-opinion affirming alimony in the case • should not be construed as departing from our previous holdings on the subject. Here the husband stipulated for the allowance.
Ellis, C. J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1927)
- Phinney v. Phinney, 77 Fla. 850 (Fla. 1919)
- Nolen v. Nolen, 121 Fla. 130 (Fla. 1935)