WILLIAM S. BURKHART
v.
LEONORA FORNEY BURKHART
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.
William Burkhart appealed a circuit court's recommendation for temporary alimony, solicitor's fees, and hearing expenses in a divorce proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court deferred ruling on the merits to first resolve whether the lower court had jurisdiction over the defendant.
The Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits of the alimony and fees award, instead deferring decision until the jurisdictional question was resolved on appeal.
“The Chancellor finds that the appellant's estate is amply able to pay the appellee the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars monthly as temporary support money during the continuance of this litigation”
Establishes the Circuit Judge's finding of the appellant's financial ability to support alimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeonora Forney Burkhart filed a petition for alimony pendente lite and solicitor's fees. The Supreme Court referred the matter to a Circuit Judge who …
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 Alimony Pendente Lite cases and more on FLexlaw
On consideration of petition for alimony pendente lite and solicitor’s fees in the Supreme Court, this Court on October 9, 1939, referred the matter to the Honorable Arthur Gomez, Judge of the Circuit Court in' and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, to take testimony and make recommendation of his findings to this Court in that behalf.
*725Testimony has been taken and the Circuit Judge has made his report in which he recommends as follows:
“The Chancellor finds that the appellant’s estate is amply able to pay the appellee the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars monthly as temporary support money during the continuance of this litigation, and upon inquiry of appellee and other testimony the Chancellor finds that her requirements for support will amount to that sum in the event she is supported in accordance with the support she received while living with appellant as his wife.
“The Chancellor further finds that the appellant is able to pay a reasonable temporary counsel fee and, after hearing witnesses for the respective parties and consulting counsel representing the parties, the Chancellor is of the opinion that Twelve Hundred and Fifty Dollars would be a reasonable temporary counsel fee to be allowed to appellee’s counsel at this time, and therefore recommends to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida that it allow counsel for appellee the sum of Twelve Hundred 'and Fifty Dollars.
“The Chancellor further recommends to the Honorable Supreme Court that it enter an order for the allowance of expenses necessary and incident to conducting the hearings before the Chancellor in this proceeding in the amount of Seven Dollars and fifty cents.”
It now appears to the Court, however, that the first question which we may be required to determine is, whether or not the court below acquired jurisdiction of the defendant; and, therefore, whether or not either the court below or this Court has jurisdiction to enter any order requiring the appellant here to pay the defendant any sum for alimony or attorney’s fees.
It is, therefore, ordered that the Court will not make any adjudication in this regard at this time, but will defer the *726same until such time as the appeal shall have been disposed of on the question of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Chapman, J. J.,’ concur.
Thomas, J., dissents.
Justice Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of ■ the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tallentire v. Leonora Forney Burkhart, 153 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1943)…SEBRING, J.: Thomas L. Tallentire and William S. Burkhart Realty Corporation are here on petition for certiorari. Certain phases of the suit have been before this court on previous occasions. See Burkhart v. Burkhart, 141 Fla. 450, 193 So. 434; 141 Fla. 724, 193 So. 834; 144 Fla. 168, 197 So. 730; 144 Fla. 176, 198 So. 21; 145 Fla. 547, 200 So. 694; Burkhart v. Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, et al., 146 Fla. 457, 1 So. (2nd) 872; Tallentire v. Burkhart, 150 Fla. 137, 7 So. (2nd) 326. The fa…
-
Fredericka Lucian v. THE S. Ohio Sav. Bank & Tr. Co., 156 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1945)…because, as this record shows, he sued for and secured a divorce in Ohio. The answer also alleges that pending the appeal of W. S. Burkhart in the case of Burkhart v. Burkhart, and appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, 141 Fla. 450, 193 So. 434, 141 Fla. 724, 193 So. 834; 144 Fla. 176, 197 So. 730, 198 So. 21, (which last appeal was taken from the chancellor’s order of September 15, 1939, holding that Burkhart’s special appearance amounted to a general appearance) counsel for appellee Leonora F. Burkhar…1 / 2