LEWIS GERSHOWITZ
v.
ELSIE GERSHOWITZ
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 reversed a lower court's dismissal of a husband's divorce complaint, finding that the husband's residence in Florida was sufficiently established to confer jurisdiction and that the evidence of the wife's extreme mental and physical cruelty was sufficient to warrant granting the divorce.
The court held that the proof of the plaintiff's Florida residence was sufficiently established to confer jurisdiction on the court, and that the allegations of extreme mental and physical cruelty were sufficiently supported by the evidence to warrant granting a divorce to the plaintiff.
“the proof of residence of the plaintiff in Florida was sufficiently established to confer jurisdiction on the court and we also find that the allegations of the bill to the effect that the defendant has been guilty of extreme mental and physical cruelty to the plaintiff have been sufficiently established by the proof to warrant the granting of a divorce to the plaintiff”
Establishes the core holding that both jurisdiction and grounds for divorce were established
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff-husband Lewis Gershowitz filed a bill of complaint for divorce against his wife Elsie Gershowitz, alleging extreme mental and physical cruel…
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
On appeal we review final decree dismissing bill of complaint and also dismissing appellee’s counter-claim and requiring the plaintiff-husband to pay the fee of the master in the sum of $50.00 and $150.00 attorney’s fees, and denying relief recommended by the master by way of an allowance for separate maintenance to the wife. In the master’s report it is recommended that the bill of complaint be dismissed because residence of the plaintiff in Florida had not been sufficiently proved. We are not advised by the language of the decree upon what ground the bill was dismissed. Therefore, we have carefully considered the record to determine whether or not the decree dismissing the bill is warranted.
We find no error in the order allowing the master’s fee and solicitor’s fee.
Our conclusion, however, is that the proof of residence of the plaintiff in Florida was sufficiently established to confer jurisdiction on the court and we also find that the allegations of the bill to the effect that the defendant has been guilty of extreme mental and physical cruelty to the plaintiff have been sufficiently established by the proof to warrant the granting of a divorce to the plaintiff.
It can serve no useful purpose for us to detail evidence upon which we base this finding but it is sufficient to say that such finding is supported by our opinions and judgments in the cases of Gratz v. Gratz, 137 Fla. 709, 188 So. 580; Henderson v. Henderson, 137 Fla. 170, 189 So. 24; Baker v. Baker, 94 Fla. 101, 114 Fla. 661; Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260, 193 So. 63; Bergman v. Bergman, 145 Fla. 10, 199 So. 920; Ross v. Ross, 148 Fla. 294, 4 So. (2nd) 332.
It, therefore, follows that the decree must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.
So ordered.
TERRELL, BROWN, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
*591THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.
dissenting:
My view is that jurisdiction was not shown and that the master’s recommendations should have been sustained, therefore I dissent.
dissenting:
I concur in the views stated by Mr. Justice THOMAS. Therefore, I dissent.
THOMAS, J.,
dissenting:
My view is that jurisdiction was not shown and that the master’s recommendations should have been sustained, therefore I dissent.
SEBRING, J.,
dissenting:
I concur in the views stated by Mr. Justice THOMAS. Therefore, I dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1940)
- Bergman v. Bergman, 145 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1940)
- Gratz v. Gratz, 137 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1939)
- Henderson v. Parker A. Henderson, Jr., 137 Fla. 770 (Fla. 1939)
- Smith v. Knott, 141 Fla. 312 (Fla. 1940)