Bezanilla v. Bezanilla
| Decision Date | 12 June 1953 |
| Citation | 65 So.2d 754 |
| Parties | BEZANILLA v. BEZANILLA. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
W. Curry Harris, Key West, for appellant.
Neblett & Youmans, Key West, for appellee.
We review the proceedings and decree of the Chancellor in the husband's suit for divorce against his wife. His bill charges her with extreme cruelty. Her answer denies the charges and counterclaims for separate maintenance, custody of the three minor children and adequate support for them. The Chancellor determined the issue in his favor and granted a divorce. The decree further provided that she have custody of the children and required plaintiff to convey to her certain real estate on which was situated an apartment house having a net income of approximately $300 per month as a lump sum settlement of alimony burdened with the charge that out of this income she should furnish support for the children. No allocation of the income between her and the children was made. Other provisions of the decree need not be set forth.
This appeal attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree of divorce and the adequacy and validity of the lump sum provision for alimony consisting of the real estate with the charge of support for the children against its income.
The evidence, while sharply conflicting, furnishes sufficient basis for the decree of divorce and we are not justified in overturning the Chancellor's determination of the matter. We are further of the opinion that the lump sum settlement of the real estate with the charge of the children's support against it was liberal in view of plaintiff's financial condition and future prospects. Because of the loss of his business and its income all will have to retrench the scale of their living expenses.
Defendant's apprehension that this provision of the decree for the children's support absolves plaintiff of all financial obligation for any further or additional support, should it be needed, is unfounded. Section 65.08, F.S. 1951, F.S.A., authorizes a decree for a lump sum settlement as alimony for the wife and when made discharges him of further liability for her support. Section 65.14, the controlling statute, empowers the Court 'at any stage of the cause to make such orders touching the care, custody and maintenance of the children * * * as from the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case may be fit, equitable and just'. This statute contains no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higginbotham v. Higginbotham
...in the form of ordering defendant to convey the property in question. Kilian v. Kilian, 97 So.2d 201 (D.Ct.App.1957); Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, 65 So.2d 754 (Sup.Ct.1953). Defendant never took an appeal from the decree or otherwise challenged its provisions in the Florida Plaintiff's original......
-
Bardol v. Martin
...to irrevocably divest himself of or to abandon them at his mere will or pleasure." 101 So. at 283 [c.o.]. Similarly in Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, 65 So.2d 754, 756 (Fla.1953), the court said "The highest spiritual and moral concepts, as well as the law, demand that the father, as far as his me......
-
Zalka v. Zalka
...although either party could apply at any time for an allocation of a specific amount for alimony and for child support. Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 754. The remarriage of the wife during the minority of the children, or the attainment of their majority by the children where t......
-
Bell v. Bell
...sale with one-half of the proceeds going to the wife is not for the purpose of any lump sum settlement as alimony. See Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 754; Reid v. Reid, Fla.1954, 68 So.2d 821; Kilian v. Kilian, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 201. The chancellor's findings fail to establ......