HELEN D. LAUCK, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM F. LAUCK, 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.
The court held that recrimination is not applicable as a matter of law because the husband's desertion was a direct consequence of the wife's cruelty.
The plaintiff-wife appealed a final judgment of divorce awarded to the defendant-husband. The wife challenged the sufficiency of evidence for extreme …
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 Recrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal for the plaintiff-wife from a final judgment of divorce awarded the defendant-husband. The appellant brought a complaint for separate maintenance and the husband counter-claimed for divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty.
The first point presented in this appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment upon the grounds of extreme cruelty. We find the statement of fact which has been used in lieu of a record to be sufficient to support the judgment. Windham v. Windham, 144 Fla. 563, 198 So. 202 (1940); Dowda v. Dowda, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 592.
The second point urges that the trial judge erred in failing to apply the doctrine of recrimination and therefore denying the divorce. We hold that recrimination is not applicable as a matter of law to the facts of this case because the trial court necessarily found that the husband’s desertion was a direct consequence of the cruelty proved. Harmon v. Harmon, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 164; Benson v. Benson, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 748.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Windham v. Windham, 144 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1940)
- Benson v. Benson, 102 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Harman v. Bennett B. Harman, 128 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Dowda v. Dowda, 225 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)