BLANCHE M. ROONEY
v.
DAN ROONEY
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 granted to the husband based on the wife's extreme cruelty and violent temper. The court found sufficient evidence to support the lower court's findings and also implicitly affirmed the denial of permanent alimony, as the wife had not requested it and the master recommended against it.
No, the lower court did not err. The evidence was sufficient to support the divorce decree, and the implicit denial of alimony was proper given the wife's failure to request it and the master's recommendation.
“There is some conflict in the testimony, but the allegations. of the bill charging the wife with extreme cruelty to plaintiff and habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper are sufficient, and there is ample evidence to support the,decree oí the lower court.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the evidence supported the divorce decree.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband filed for divorce alleging extreme cruelty and a violent temper on the part of his wife. The case was referred to a master, who found the al…
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 Habitual Indulgence In Violent And Ungovernable Temper cases and more on FLexlaw
— In a suit for divorce brought by the husband on the grounds of extreme cruelty to plaintiff and habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper, the cause was referred to a master, and, upon his findings of fact, a final decree granting the divorce was entered by the lower court. The Appellant in her answer made no application for permanent alimony and the master in his findings recommended that the final decree provide that appellant is not entitled to permanent alimony. The final decree made no reference to an allowance of permanent alimony, thereby impliedly denying alimony. An appeal from this decree was taken by the wife.
There is some conflict in the testimony, but the allegations. of the bill charging the wife with extreme cruelty to plaintiff and habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper are sufficient, and there is ample evidence to *636support the,decree oí the lower court. The record has' been examined by the Court and, finding no reversible error therein, the decree of the lower court is affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J.,' concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Justices Terrell and Buford not participating as authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.