Beaty v. Beaty, 4454
| Decision Date | 07 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 4454,4454 |
| Citation | 177 So.2d 54 |
| Parties | Frances Jean BEATY, Appellant, v. Charles A. BEATY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George W. Phillips, of McDonald & Phillips, Tampa, for appellant.
John W. Boult, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, Glos & Evans, Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant seeks reversal of portions of a final decree entered by the chancellor in the lower court in which decree the appellant, as plaintiff below, was awarded a decree of divorce from the appellee on the ground of extreme cruelty.
As its findings the court stated 'that the plaintiff now has assets in the sum of approximately $23,000.00 in cash, which includes the sum hereby awarded to the defendant, the defendant's assets being approximately of like amount, the defendant being gainfully employed with a net income of about $900.00 per month, the plaintiff likewise being capable of gainful employment as shown by the evidence in this case.' The court further found that no children were involved in the proceeding. The decree also stated that 'neither of the parties is without blemish though the court finds that the fault is more with the defendant. * * *' The decree denied Plaintiff-Appellant's application for alimony although it retained jurisdiction to award alimony '* * * should the circumstances of the defendant and necessity of the plaintiff justify the same.' Use of the home premises was awarded the Plaintiff-Appellant so long as she lives thereon or until she remarries, with the mortgage payments and other expenses for its upkeep being declared a joint obligation of the parties. The decree ordered the Plaintiff-Appellant to turn over to the Defendant-Appellee certain stock certificates in his name, together with certain of his personal property, and awarded her a stipulated attorney's fee of $2500.00.
Appellant's focal point of attack, in addition to her complaint of the denial of alimony, seems to be directed at paragraph 3 of the final decree which reads as follows:
'3. The plaintiff, Frances Jean Beaty, is hereby directed to pay to the defendant, Charles A. Beaty, the sum of $4,811.17, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from this date, which the Court finds to have been withdrawn by the Plaintiff from their joint accounts without defendant's knowledge and consent, to-wit:
(a) The sum of $1000.00, being interest on $7,000.00 from May 8, 1956, to January 13, 1961, being the monies withdrawn by the plaintiff on May 8, 1956, from the joint account of the parties hereto in the First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
(b) The sum of $1000.00 plus interest thereon in the sum of $195.00, being the sum withdrawn by the plaintiff from the joint checking account of the parties in the First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, by check dated May 13, 1957;
(c) The sum of $500.00 plus interest thereon in the sum of $88.97, being the amount withdrawn by the plaintiff from the Citizens First National Bank of Frankfort, New York, on July 25, 1957;
(d) The sum of $500.00 plus interest thereon in the sum of $68.50, being the amount withdrawn by the plaintiff from the joint account of the parties in the National Bank and Trust Company of Fairfield County, Connecticut, on February 16, 1959;
(e) The sum of $280.00 plus interest thereon in the sum of $26.00, being the amount deposited by the plaintiff in her Savings Account No. 1,584,783, Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn, New York, and being a refund for two months' rent;
(f) The sum of $500.00 plus interest thereon in the sum of $106.00, by check dated December 20, 1956, signed by the plaintiff and payable to the order of Barney Natoli, drawn on the First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and
(g) The sum of $500.00 plus interest thereon in the sum of $46.70, being the amount withdrawn by the plaintiff from the joint account of the parties in the Bank of Babylon, Long Island, New York, on March 21, 1960.'
The appellant contends that the chancellor's findings in paragraph 3 of the decree, as quoted above, are dependent entirely upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 34957
...in harmony therewith, see Griffin v. Griffin, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 236; Heller v. Heller, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 35; Beaty v. Beaty, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 54; and Whitehead v. Whitehead, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 397; and cf. Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671; Schiff v. Schiff, Fla......
-
Zuidhof v. Zuidhof, 70-50
...17. The adjustment of property rights upon divorce is an equitable proceeding and is governed by equitable principles. Beaty v. Beaty, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 54. With this in mind we have examined the evidence and find that the proofs do not support a finding of special equity. Benson v. B......
-
Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, AV-79
...to the husband half of the Eastman Kodak stock. The appellant/wife contends these awards were error. We disagree. See Beaty v. Beaty, 177 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (that court holding that if joint checking accounts were owned by the husband and wife as an estate by the entireties, and if......
-
Pfaffko v. Pfaffko, s. 89-00815
...v. Diffenderfer, 456 So.2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986); Beaty v. Beaty, 177 So.2d 54, 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). As her fourth point on appeal, the wife contests the portion of the final judgment and a subsequent order requiring that the wife......