THOMPSON
v.
THOMPSON
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.
A Florida husband challenged a divorce decree granting his wife a divorce on grounds of habitual intemperance and extreme cruelty, awarding her custody of minor children, child support, and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree, finding no merit to the appellant's complaints and noting that many of the issues he raised were either by agreement or not properly preserved for review.
The court affirmed the lower court's decree in full, holding that the husband failed to establish any merit to his appeal. The husband's complaint about lack of visitation privileges was rejected because he never requested such a decree. The presumptive correctness of the chancellor's decree was not rebutted by the evidence or arguments presented.
“The chancellor's decree is presumptively correct and we find nothing whatever to remove that presumption.”
Establishes the standard of review that the lower court's judgment carries a presumption of correctness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife filed for divorce in Duval County Circuit Court alleging the husband's habitual intemperance and extreme cruelty. The husband filed a cross-b…
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 Habitual Intemperance cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellee brought this suit for divorce against appellant in the Circuit Court of Duval County charging habitual intemperance and extreme cruelty. Appellant answered with a cross-bill charging appellee with a violent and ungovernable temper. Answer was filed to the cross-bill and a special master was appointed to take testimony on the merits. On final hearing the chancellor approved the recommendation of the special master, in that he granted plaintiff a divorce, awarded her custody of the minor children and an attorneys fee of $150. The final decree also awarded appellee $25 per week for support of the minor children without the right of visitation, which was not prayed for. This appeal is from the final decree.
Several questions are urged by appellant but some of them turn on the evidence which, by agreement of counsel, was taken orally and is not here for review. In fact, all we have before us is the master’s report and the final decree.
Appellant complains that he was not decreed visitation privileges, but the answer to this complaint is that he did not ask for such a decree. In fact, we find no merit whatever to his appeal. The orders he complains of were entered by agreement of counsel. The chancellor’s decree is presumptively correct and we find nothing whatever to remove that presumption. The decree appealed from is accordingly affirmed. Appellee is allowed an attorney’s fee of $150 for defending her decree in this Court.
In all other respects the decree appealed from is affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.