JOSEPH GIACHETTI
v.
MARY GIACHETTI
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.
In this divorce case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a chancellor's decree granting Mary Giachetti a divorce from Joseph Giachetti on grounds of cruelty, awarding her property interests in citrus groves, and allowing attorney's fees. The husband appealed on several grounds including the division of grove properties and the failure to enter a custody order.
The court affirmed the decree, finding no error. The failure to enter a custody order was proper because the child was in Illinois and outside Florida's jurisdiction. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the divorce on grounds of cruelty and the wife's residence. The division of the groves was proper: the old grove, created as an estate by the entireties, became a tenancy in common upon divorce; the wife's one-third interest in the young grove was supported by evidence of her $273.00 inheritance contribution and material assistance in developing the property.
“we are unable to hold the chancellor in error for failing to enter an order therein because the child was in the State of Illinois and had not been within the confines of the State of Florida for the past several years”
Establishes that lack of jurisdiction over the child's person prevents error in failing to award custody.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph and Mary Giachetti were married and had one child approximately ten years old at the time of the final hearing. The child was residing in Illin…
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 Child Custody Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a decree of the chancellor granting a divorce and settling the property rights of the parties.
On the pleadings the appellee wife asked for a divorce on the grounds of cruelty; that she be decreed to own one-half interest in certain citrus groves and also be granted the custody of their only child. The answer denied the material allegations of the bill, charged desertion and asked for a divorce and custody of the child.
The chancellor personally heard the testimony and found the equities with the wife. She was granted a divorce, a one-third interest in a grove referred to as a young grove (properly described in the decree), a one-half interest in another grove and an allowance for attorney’s fees and costs.
The husband is contesting the decree on several grounds, one of which is that no order was made for the custody of the child. Although both parties asked for the custody of the child., who was approximately ten years old at the time of the final hearing, we are unable to hold the chancellor in error for failing to enter an order therein because the child was in the State of Illinois and had not been within the confines of the State of Florida for the past several years. See Di Giorio v. Di Giorio, 153 Fla. 24, 13 So. (2nd) 596.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the bill alleging residence of the wife and her charge of cruelty is questioned. We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the decree of both issues.
It is urged that the chancellor erred in dividing the two grove properties. It appears that the old grove came as a gift from an individual, who, by strange coincidence, was the stepfather to both plaintiff and defendant. The conveyance to them created an estate by the entireties and the divorce left them owner as. tenants in common.
The decree affecting the young grove (about fifteen acres) which found that the wife contributed about $250.00 or $275.00 to the purchase price is attacked for lack of any testimony. To be exact, the testimony does show that the husband owned this land before the marriage, however, there is evidence that the wife contributed her inheritance amounting *261to $273.00 to the planting.of the grove; that in addition she worked and assisted materially in the development of the young grove until she was forced to leave by her husband.
We find no error in the decree and the same is affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhoades v. Bohn, 114 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…., concur. . Dahlke v. Dahlke, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 16; Cone v. Cone, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 907. . Dorman v. Friendly, 146 Fla. 732, 1 So. 2d 734. . State ex rel. Galen v. Kuhl, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So. 2d 225. . Giachetti v. Giachetti, 157 Fla. 259, 25 So. 2d 658; Digirogio v. Digirogio, 153 Fla. 24, 13 So. 2d 596; State ex rel. Clark v. Clark, 148 Fla. 452, 4 So. 2d 517. .State ex rel. Galen v. Kuhl, supra note 3; Dahlke v. Dahlke, supra note 1; Gil-man v. Morgan, 158 Fla. 605, 29 So. 2d 372. . Marshal v.…
-
Bell v. Bell, 112 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…common. See also Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So. 2d 727; Markland v. Markland, 155 Fla. 629, 21 So. 2d 145; Andrews v. Andrews, 155 Fla. 654, 21 So. 2d 205; Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So. 2d 356; Giachetti v. Giachetti, 157 Fla. 259, 25 So. 2d 658. The court further ordered that the New York property be sold and that the [*66] proceeds from such sale be divided equally between the parties. The appellant-husband questions the propriety of the chancellor’s order which required sale of the prope…
-
Fredericka Phillips Chaachou v. Khudourie Chaachou, 135 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1961)…rule announced by the Florida Supreme Court in the cases of Windham v. Windham, 144 Fla. 563, 198 So. 202; Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So. 2d 727; Engebretsen v. Engebretsen, 151 Fla. 372, 11 So. 2d 322; Giachetti v. Giachetti, 157 Fla. 259, 25 So. 2d 658. “In the Engebretsen v. Engebretsen case, supra, the Supreme Court of Florida said (11 So. 2d at p. 329): “ ‘ * * * When a wife contributes her industry and labor, or when she .advances money to a business operated by her husband during coverture,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Digirogio v. Digirogio, 153 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1943)