ALMINA DAHLIN PHILLIPS
v.
E. LAWRENCE PHILLIPS
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, finding the appellant's arguments for reversal insufficient. The court denied the appellant's request for suit money and counsel fees due to the lack of grounds for reversal.
No, the evidence presented by the appellant is insufficient to reverse the divorce decree. Consequently, the motion for suit money and counsel fees is denied.
“This evidence has been examined and found insufficient to reverse the decree of the chancellor.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the appellant's submitted evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought to reverse a divorce decree, arguing that the complainant had not established residency in Florida at the time of filing and that…
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 Counsel Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Order
An appeal in the above styled cause was recently lodged in this Court. It now comes on to be heard on. application for suit money, counsel fees, and on motion to diminish the record of testimony. Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment on these grounds, (1) that it is not shown that complainant had acquired his residence in this State at the time his bill of divorce was filed, and (2) it is shown that prior to the time suit was brought, a reconciliation between appellant and appellee had been effected and no acts of cruelty on which the divorce was granted were shown to have taken place after the reconciliation.
Appellant has attached to and made a part of her motion to diminish the record of testimony, all the material evi*271dence which she contends supports her grounds for reversal. This evidence has been examined and found insufficient to reverse the decree of the chancellor.
In this situation, it follows that there being no ground for reversal, there is no reason to bring the cause to this Court, so the motion for suit money and counsel’s fees must be and is hereby denied. We would be inclined to grant the motion to diminish the testimony but it becomes unnecessary to rule on that question.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J., dissents.
(dissenting). — I dissent. See Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196, 125 So. 694.
Thomas, J.
(dissenting). — I dissent. See Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196, 125 So. 694.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mack v. Mack, 115 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…ing this appeal. Since appellant has failed to furnish this court with a record demonstrating necessity for appellate review of the decree and order appealed from, we deny the motion for attorney’s fees. Cf. Phillips v. Phillips, 1940, 142 Fla. 270, 194 So. 786. Affirmed. KANNER, Acting Chief Judge, and SHANNON, J., concur.…
-
Titcomb v. Soloman F. Titcomb, 160 Fla. 320 (Fla. 1948)…ard of counsel fees, suit money or alimony will be allowed in this court. The application for counsel fees is addressed to the sound discretion of the appellate court. Troeger v. Troeger, 127 Fla. 53, 172 So. 473; Phillips v. Phillips, 142 Fla. 270, 194 So. 786; Wright v. Wright, 142 Fla. 580, 195 So. 201. The petition for an allowance of attorney fees for services rendered in this Court is denied and the decree appealed from is affirmed. THOMAS, C. J.,' TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ„ concur.…
-
Penelope Seaver Fownes v. Fownes, 160 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1948)…l, notwithstanding the presumption that a proper decree has been entered. See Woodward v. Woodward, 122 Fla. 300, 165 So. 46; Phifer v. Phifer, 124 Fla. 223, 168 So. 9; Troeger v. Troeger, 127 Fla. 53, 172 So. 473; Phillips v. Phillips 142 Fla. 270, 194 So. 786; Wright v. Wright, 142 Fla. 580, 195 So. 201. It must be made to appear that she has not brought a record here in violation of the rules of this Court, particularly Supreme Court Rule 11 (2) (a) and (b), as follows: “ (a) Guide to Preparation of Re…
Authorities Cited
- McNeil v. Jenkins-McNeil (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Frederic G. Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196 (Fla. 1929)