Bowler v. Bowler

Decision Date01 August 1947
Citation159 Fla. 447,31 So.2d 751
PartiesBOWLER v. BOWLER.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; C. E. Chillingworth judge.

Wideman Wardlaw & Stewart, of West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Gedney Johnston & Lilienthal and Harry A. Johnston, all of West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PARKS, Associate Justice.

The parties married in January, 1940, and separated shortly before the bringing of this suit by the wife, in March, 1946. One child, Sally Rockefeller Bowler, five years of age, was born of the marriage. The record of the trial consists of more than 1100 pages, and we can see no useful purpose to be served in attempting to write in detail the marital troubles of the parties reflected in the record. Suffice to say that upon a careful examination of the record we find no error in the decree requiring the setting aside in toto of the decree of the lower court. In that decree divorce was granted to the wife, alimony and support money for the child and attorneys fees for the wife were decreed. Costs were taxed against the defendant. The defendant appealed, challenging the decree in toto and specifically that part of it reading: 'There are no special equities which entitle the wife to a decree awarding her a specific interest in the property of the husband. Yet, it does not appear that his misconduct should deprive her of valuable dower rights. Accordingly, the Court deems it equitable that she should be made the beneficiary of the life insurance policy, but not permit either party to utilize any cash surrender or loan value of the policy. It seems appropriate that she should be made beneficiary, and, on maturity of the policy, monthly payments be made to her as long as she might live--which she would use for her benefit and the benefit of the child as their needs may require--with the further provision that if the wife should predecease the husband or die before the minimum number of payments were made, then the policy proceeds should become a part of the estate of the husband, or if he preferred, go direct to the child.'

The special equities referred to are apparently of the character of those referred to by this court in Collins v. Collins, 153 Fla. 10, 13 So.2d 445; Markland v. Markland, 155 Fla. 629, 21 So.2d 145.

Although the case as determined by the Chancellor, did not authorize a decretal order for any interest in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ryan v. Ryan
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1973
    ...of its defeasible nature dower is not to be given consideration in divorce or dissolution of marriage proceedings. Bowler v. Bowler, 159 Fla. 447, 31 So.2d 751 (1947). Dower is, as stated, statutory in nature. Fla.Stat. § 731.34, F.S.A. It is an expectancy, not a present estate (thus 'incho......
  • Strater v. Strater
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1963
    ...Mo.App., Bevier v. Bevier, 132 S.W.2d 1044, 1048, 1049. Wife is entitled to counsel fees on appeal of a divorce action. Bowler v. Bowler, 159 Fla. 447, 31 So.2d 751. The appellee was granted a divorce, a substantial sum in lieu of alimony and an amount for support of a child. The appellant ......
  • Donner's Estate, In re, s. 76-1919
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 3, 1978
    ...under Florida law. Dower is a right of the wife granted to her by law and vests on the death of the husband. Bowler v. Bowler, 159 Fla. 447, 31 So.2d 751 (1947). The inchoate right of dower is purely a prerogative of the legislature which may modify or abolish it at will. It is a personal r......
  • Fort v. Fort
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1956
    ...relinquishment of a property right, where made in a separation agreement entered into in contemplation of divorce. Cf. Bowler v. Bowler, 1947, 159 Fla. 447, 31 So.2d 751. In any event, the matter is primarily one to be decided by the Chancellor, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT