J. KENNETH WILLIAMSON
v.
GLADYS G. WILLIAMSON
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 the prior order allowing application for additional alimony within a specific period was not precluded by the denial of a motion to dismiss the petition.
Following a prior affirmation with modifications, the appellant applied for additional alimony for support and medical needs. The chancellor denied a …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
On August 3, 1943, this Court affirmed the case of Williamson v. Williamson, reported in 153 Fla. 357, 14 So. (2nd) 712, with modifications, and we said: “It is our conclusion that the decree should be affirmed, without prejudice to the-appellant (Mrs. Gladys G. Williamson) to apply, prior to the expiration'of the eighteen months’ period provided for in the decree, . . . for an order requiring additional payments of alimony to be made by the appellee.”
*201On October 20,1943, Gladys G. Williamson filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, seeking an award of additional payments of alimony” over and above the payments awarded “by the terms of the final decree in sufficient amount to enable her to support herself in the manner to which she is entitled.”
The chancellor below denied a motion to dismiss the said petition of Gladys G. Williamson and said order is challenged here by petition for interlocutory writ of certiorari. These issues were placed at rest by our opinion and judgment in the case on appeal. The door was left open so that she may enter, within the eighteen months’ period, and apply for additional payments of alimony to be made after the expiration of the eighteeen months. She is not precluded from applying, within the eighteen months’ period for additional sums with which to defray costs of medical treatment or a surgical operation upon her body, — the merits of the application to be considered upon the showing made.
The petition for an interlocutory writ of certiorari is hereby granted and the order dated November 24, 1943, is quashed. The petition of Gladys G. Williamson for temporary alimony and attorney’s fees in this Court in the case at bar are each denied.
It is so ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knox v. Knox, 159 Fla. 123 (Fla. 1947)…hereof to a period of five years after date of the final decree is not sustained by the authorities. The case of Williamson v. Williamson, 153 Fla. 357, 14 So. (2nd) 712, is cited to sustain this view. For subsequent appearances of the same case see 154 Fla. 200, 17 So. (2nd) 78; 156 Fla. 89, 22 So. (2nd) 578. We think there is merit in the contention and we find no reasonable basis in the record for limiting the payment of alimony to the wife for a period of five years after the date of the final decree, r…
-
Williamson v. Williamson, 156 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1945)…applying within the eighteen months period for additional sums with which to defray costs of medical .treatment or -a surgical operation upon her body, the merits of the application to be considered upon the showing made.” Williamson v. Williamson, 154 Fla. 200, 17 So. (2nd) 78. Relying on the latter order, appellant again filed her petition for additional payments of alimony and with it a petition for temporary alimony, attorneys’ fees, and suit money. Both petitions were dismissed and we are now confron…
-
Shuler v. State, 161 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1964)…of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. It is so ordered. DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, THOR-NAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur. . See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770. . Sitamore v. Mayo, et al., 154 Fla. 160, 17 So. 2d 78.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williamson v. Williamson, 153 Fla. 357 (Fla. 1943)