Close v. Close
| Decision Date | 18 March 1947 |
| Citation | 29 So.2d 625,158 Fla. 636 |
| Parties | CLOSE v. CLOSE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 10, 1947.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Marshall C. wiseheart, judge.
George J. Baya, of Miami, for appellant.
Knight, Underwood & Cullen, of Miami, for appellee.
The appellant filed her bill of complaint for separate maintenance for herself and two minor children, pursuant to the provisions of Section 65.10, F.S.1941, F.S.A. This Section authorizes a suit by the wife where the 'husband having ability to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his wife or minor children shall fail to do so'. In order for the suit to be maintained, the husband must be able to maintain or to contribute to the support of his family and fail. If the husband at the time of the institution of the suit is not withholding support, commensurate with the financial condition and circumstances of the parties, this action is not maintainable.
Here, the Chancellor found that at the time of the institution of the suit and during the progress thereof the appellee was adequately providing for the support of his wife and children and dismissed the bill with prejudice. The finding of the Chancellor is supported by the evidence. Should the facts change, and the husband thereafter withhold support, a new action is thereafter maintainable. The action may be prosecuted whenever, and only whenever, the husband having ability to maintain or contribute 'shall fail to do so'.
Considerable testimony was taken to determine who was at fault in the separation of the parties, but this question becomes immaterial in view of the finding that the appellee was not withholding support from his family.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pawley v. Pawley
...be affirmed. Such holding and judgment would be mandatory under our adjudications if there had never been a Cuban divorce. Close v. Close, 158 Fla. 636, 29 So.2d 625; Nelson v. State ex-rel. Quigg, 156 Fla. 189, 23 So.2d 136, and cases therein cited; City of Miami v. Huttoe, Fla., 38 So.2d ......
-
Rambo v. Rambo, E-58
...support, commensurate with the financial condition and circumstances of the parties, the action is not maintainable. Close v. Close, 158 Fla. 636, 29 So.2d 625 (1947). In Egland v. Egland, 92 So.2d 647 (Fla.1957), the wife in a suit for separate maintenance testified that she had not receiv......
-
Stone v. Stone
...under § 65.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., is not withholding support, such action is not maintainable. The Supreme Court so held in Close v. Close, 158 Fla. 636, 29 So.2d 625; and this Court held similarly in Perry v. Perry, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 152. See also Poerschke v. Poerschke, Fla.App.1959,......
-
Poerschke v. Poerschke
...the ability to support hsi wife or children, nevertheless fails to do so. Perry v. Perry, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 152; Close v. Close, 158 Fla. 636, 29 So.2d 625. There is no evidence in the record that the husband failed or refused to support his wife and children. The wife in that portion ......