CHARLES LAZENBY, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANETTE LAZENBY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1969-05-27
No. 68-1035
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
223 So. 2d 335 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1969)

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.

Synopsis

The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision granting the wife separate maintenance and alimony, and denying the husband's counterclaim for divorce, finding substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's rulings and no abuse of discretion in the alimony award.


Holding

No, the trial court did not err. The decision was supported by substantial competent evidence, and there was no abuse of discretion in the alimony award.


Key Quotes

“The decision reached by the trial court, on the conflicting evidence relating to the merits of the cause, was supported by substantial competent evidence.”

Establishes the basis for affirming the trial court's decision on the merits.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The wife sued her husband for alimony unconnected with divorce, alleging extreme cruelty. The husband counterclaimed for divorce on the same grounds. …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Jeanette Lazenby sued her husband the appellant Charles Lazenby for alimony unconnected with divorce, charging extreme cruelty. The defendant husband counterclaimed for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. Following trial of the cause before the court, a final decree was entered denying the husband’s counterclaim and granting the plaintiff wife separate maintenance, with alimony fixed at $150 per month. This appeal by the husband challenges the correctness of those rulings. We find no reversible error, and affirm. The decision reached by the trial court, on the conflicting evidence relating to the merits of the cause, was supported by substantial competent evidence. In the circumstances disclosed relevant to the claim of alimony, we hold that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in the alimony award.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw