HILDA YOLANDA GREGORY, APPELLANT,
v.
LEDFORD GERALD GREGORY, M.D., 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.
A wife appealed a trial court decree that denied her claim for separate maintenance, granted her husband a divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty, and awarded her alimony and child support. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the husband's testimony and corroborating evidence sufficient to establish grounds for divorce and the alimony and child support provisions adequate.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The husband's testimony, supplemented by corroborating witnesses, was adequate to establish grounds for divorce on the basis of extreme cruelty. The alimony and child support provisions, including both cash payments and non-monetary benefits, were adequate and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
“There is no serious challenge as to the sufficiency of the testimony of the husband to establish his charged ground of divorce, but it was argued that his case was inadequate for want of corroboration. A number of witnesses were offered in corroboration. While their testimony was sketchy, viewing it all together we hold it was adequate for the purpose”
Establishes that corroborating testimony, even if sketchy, was sufficient to support the divorce decree on grounds of extreme cruelty.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife filed suit against her husband for alimony unconnected with divorce. The husband answered and counterclaimed for divorce on the ground of ext…
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 Unconnected With Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed suit against her husband for alimony unconnected with divorce. The husband answered and counterclaimed for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. Trial of the cause before the court resulted in a decree denying the wife’s claim for separate maintenance, granting the husband a divorce. The wife was awarded custody of the children. The decree ordered payment by the husband of $250 a month alimony and $200 a month support for each of the four children, making the total for alimony and child support $1,050 per month. In addition, the decree provided that the husband should pay for special schooling of one of the children and for “psycho-therapy which may be necessary” for another of the children; that the residence of the parties be used as a home by the wife and children; that the husband should pay the monthly mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and reasonable repairs thereon; and that upon sale of the property the proceeds should be equally divided between the parties; also that the husband should continue in force certain life insurance policies aggregating $30,000 of which the children should remain beneficiaries, and should maintain a major medical insurance policy “including dental care” for the benefit of the children; and the husband was required to pay annual premiums for insurance on an automobile owned by the wife.
The appellant contends the court erred in three respects, first, in denying her claim for separate maintenance, second, in decreeing a divorce in favor of the husband, and third, that the provisions for alimony and child support were inadequate. We have considered these contentions of the appellant in the light of the record and the briefs and find them to be without merit. There is no serious challenge as to the sufficiency of the testimony of the husband to establish his charged ground of divorce, but it was argued that his case was inadequate for want of corroboration. A number of witnesses were offered in corroboration. While their testimony was sketchy, viewing it all together we hold it was adequate for the purpose, and in that respect we agree with the able trial judge whose decree comes here with a presump*485tion of correctness. We are unconvinced by the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant with reference to claimed inadequacy of the provisions for care and support of the wife and the children. The challenge was to the cash payments ordered. However, they were supplemented by the other provisions listed. The determination thereof was a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial judge on consideration of the evidence and the respective needs of those to be supported and the ability of the husband who wáS' to supply it. In our opinion the wife has not met the burden of showing an abuse of discretion in respect thereto.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGARRY v. McGARRY, 247 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…termine the amount to which the wife was entitled. It has long been the rule that the amount of child support and alimony is within the sound discretion of the Chancellor. Chaires v. Chaires, Fla.1864, 10 Fla. 308; Gregory v. Gregory, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 483. As stated in Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 456, 458: “It is well settled that the matters of allowance of alimony and child support are within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor, based on the evidence presented, and due c…
-
Neckman v. Neckman, 298 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…an appellate court will be reluctant to disturb a matter which lies peculiarly within the trial judge’s jurisdiction, absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Waller v. Waller, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 352; Gregory v. Gregory, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 483; Meltzer v. Meltzer, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 470. In the instant case, the wife relies on financial statements from the husband, the latest of which demonstrate that the husband’s net worth exceeded a million dollars and his yearly income was in e…
-
Schreiber v. Schreiber, 224 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…hat appellant-wife has the burden of proof to establish that the judge abused his discretion by virtue of not giving any consideration whatsoever to the proffer of evidence relating to the above probate proceedings. Gregory v. Gregory, Fla.App.1966, 208 So. 2d 483. The question raised by the appellant is whether the chancellor erred by refusing to consider evidence which tended to show the increased ability of the husband to pay alimony and child support. She came forward with a proffer of evidence which ten…1 / 2
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