JERALD PAUL KING, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANETTE GRACE KING, 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.
In a domestic relations case, the trial court denied the husband's counterclaim for divorce based on cruelty and also denied the wife's request for court-ordered separate maintenance, finding the husband was voluntarily providing adequate support. The appellate court affirmed both rulings.
The trial court properly denied the husband's counterclaim for divorce because the wife's conduct did not constitute extreme cruelty or habitual indulgence in a violent and ungovernable temper. The trial court properly refused to enter a coercive separate maintenance order where adequate voluntary support payments were being made, though it correctly reserved jurisdiction to enter such an order in the future if payments ceased.
[1] A trial court's denial of a divorce counterclaim is affirmed when the evidence fails to establish the grounds for divorce by a fair preponderance.
[2] A court may refuse to order separate maintenance payments when the supporting spouse is already voluntarily providing adequate support.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the appellant husband has paid support money to the appellee wife for her support as well as that of the minor children in an amount sufficient to enable them to live in the manner to which they were accustomed to living during the period of time that the parties had resided together”
Establishes the factual basis for denying the separate maintenance order—adequate voluntary support was already being provided
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties separated and the wife sued for separate maintenance without divorce. The husband counterclaimed for divorce, alleging cruelty and habitua…
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 Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was sued by appellee for separate maintenance without divorce under the provisions of Section 61.09, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Appellant counterclaimed for divorce on the ground of cruelty and habitual indulgence in a violent and ungovernable temper.
Appelant’s counterclaim for divorce was denied upon the trial court’s finding that he had failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence the grounds for divorce alleged in his counterclaim. He now seeks reversal contending that the evidence was sufficient to show that he is entitled to a divorce. Appellee has cross-assigned as error the trial court’s refusal to enter an order requiring the appellant husband to pay separate maintenance to support her and the minor children.
In the final order being reviewed herein, the trial court recited as his reason for denying the appellee’s prayer for separate maintenance the court’s finding based on the evidence that the appellant husband has paid support money to the appellee wife for her support as well as that of the minor children in an amount sufficient to enable them to live in the manner to which they were accustomed to living during the period of time that the parties had resided together. Such payment had been made by appellant ever since their separation. Although the court held that appellee was not entitled to a coercive order requiring such payment, the court did correctly reserve jurisdiction to enter such a coercive order in the future in the event the support payments were terminated. We think the court’s refusal to enter an order for separate maintenance in the face of evidence that adequate payments were being voluntarily made by the husband to the wife is consistent with our opinion in Wood v. Wood, 166 So.2d 627 (Fla.App.1964); and Feldhusen v. Feldhusen, 214 So.2d 772 (Fla.App.1968). Accordingly, that portion of the order cross-appealed by appellee is affirmed.
We have considered appellant’s contention that the evidence presented to the trial court was sufficient to entitle him to a divorce on the grounds asserted in his counterclaim. We cannot agree. The *328wife’s conduct was not such as to constitute extreme cruelty or habitual indulgence in a .violent and ungovernable temper. Examination of the record persuades us that appellant has not demonstrated error in this regard. See Hieber v. Hieber, 151 So.2d 646 (Fla.App.1963).
The judgment reviewed herein is affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hieber v. Hieber, 151 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Wood v. Wood, 166 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Feldhusen v. Feldhusen, 214 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)