BRYON WHITCOMB ANTHONY
v.
MARY Z. ANTHONY
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 divorce decree, holding that the complainant met the ninety-day residency requirement for filing the bill of complaint. The court found substantial evidence supported the lower court's finding of jurisdiction, despite conflicting testimony.
Yes, the complainant met the ninety-day bona fide residency requirement. The court found substantial testimony supported the lower court's jurisdiction.
“The controlling .question presented is whether or not the complainant in the court below, appellee here, had been a bona fide resident of the State of Florida for a period of ninety days before filing the bill of complaint.”
Identifies the central legal issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant filed a bill of complaint for divorce on April 7, 1936. The primary issue was whether the complainant had been a bona fide resident of…
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.
The appeal in this case brings for review final decree of divorce.
The controlling .question presented is whether or not the complainant in the court below, appellee here, had been a bona fide resident of the State of Florida for a period of ninety days before filing the bill of complaint.
The testimony on this point is conflicting but there is substantial testimony in the record to show that the defendant and the complainant established their residence in Florida as early as the first of 1935 and had continued to hold out Miami, Florida, as the place of their residence.
*636The bill of complaint was filed on April 7, 1936.
On this evidence, the Master found that the court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. This finding was approved and affirmed by the Chancellor. It is not made to appear that such findings were clearly erroneous 'and, therefore, they will not be disturbed on appeal.
The record discloses ample evidence to sustain the allegations of the bill of complaint and the decree is affirmed.
So ordered.
Ellis, C. J., .and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J,, and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.