Blue v. Blue
| Decision Date | 23 June 1953 |
| Citation | 66 So.2d 228 |
| Parties | BLUE v. BLUE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John B. Amos and Frank H. Hendrix, Fort Walton, for appellant.
Liddon, Isler & Welch, Panama City, for appellee.
This appeal is before the Court to review the Final Decree in a divorce cause from the Circuit Court of Bay County wherein Archie D. Blue, husband and Defendant in the lower Court, and Appellee here, upon his counterclaim, was awarded a decree of divorce from Mary P. Blue, wife and plaintiff below and Appellant here, together with certain other relief as prayed for including custody of the three year old minor daughter of the parties hereto.
Appellant wife, in her complaint sought a divorce, custody of the two minor children (the older child, four and one-half years of age, was not an issue of this marriage), temporary and permanent alimony, temporary and permanent attorney fees and an equitable division of the property jointly owned by the parties in an estate by the entireties, including an established business, alleging that the Appellee husband had been guilty of extreme cruelty and habitual intemperance. intemperance.
To this complaint, Appellee filed his answer denying the acts as alleged and counterclaimed against Appellant charging her with adultery and extreme cruelty and seeking custody of the minor children. Appellant answered with a denial of the allegations as set forth in the counterclaim.
Final hearing on the merits of the cause was held before the Chancellor and upon conclusion of all the testimony Final Decree was entered finding that the equities of the cause are with the Appellee husband on his counterclaim though not specifying the charge or charges, if such be, upon which he predicated his findings.
Thereafter, the Appellant wife filed Petition for rehearing alleging that the Plaintiff had discovered and was prepared to prove by competent evidence that during the months of May and June, 1952, before the entry of the Final Decree in this cause herein, that the Defendant engaged in a number of adulterous relationships with two named women in the State of Alabama and the State of Florida and attached to this Petition were four affidavits in support of said Petition. That the information as set forth in said Petition came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff for the first time after the entry of the Final Decree, and that she could not have known of or discovered such information any earlier by the exercise of reasonable diligence, in view of the secret and hidden nature of the acts and conduct of the Defendant as claimed therein, and that such new evidence is relevant and material to the cause and not merely cumulative or corroborative and would produce a different determination of said cause in that the conduct of the defendant shows that he is not a fit and proper person to have the custody of the minor daughter of the parties and is not entitled to the divorce as awarded to him.
A careful review of the testimony offered by the Appellee husband in support of the adultery charge against Appel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacheco v. Pacheco
...it is sufficient. McMillan v. McMillan, 120 Fla. 209, 162 So. 524 (1935); Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796 (1932); Blue v. Blue, 66 So.2d 228 (Fla.1953). The evidence in the instant matter meets the required The award of custody of the three children to the appellee father is also......
-
Benson v. Benson
...McMillan v. McMillan, 120 Fla. 209, 162 So. 524, 525. See also Engebretsen v. Engebretsen, 151 Fla. 372, 11 So.2d 322; Blue v. Blue, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 228; Parker v. Parker, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 136; Goslinowski v. Goslinowski, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d Assuming that the court found that th......
-
Holl v. Talcott
...or denial of rehearing is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, but it is never an arbitrary discretion. Blue v. Blue, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 228. As indicated above, when the motion is filed by one against whom a summary judgment has been entered, the discretion not to grant......
-
Singer v. Singer, Case No. 2D18-1854
...court, and it bears on a material issue in the case, a court abuses its discretion in not hearing such evidence." (citing Blue v. Blue, 66 So. 2d 228, 230 (Fla. 1953) )); cf. Lovelass, 250 So. 3d at 705 ("Because of the husband's non-disclosure of these potential assets, the wife did not le......