Cowan v. Cowan
Decision Date | 10 June 1941 |
Parties | COWAN v. COWAN. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bay County; Ira A. Hutchinson judge.
J. M. & H. P Sapp, of Panama City, for appellant.
Clyde R. Brown, of Bonifay, for appellee.
Appellant filed his bill for divorce alleging habitual intemperance on the part of defendant. Appellee answered with a cross-bill denying the allegations as to intemperance and countering with a charge of cruelty on the part of complainant. On final hearing, the Chancellor granted complainant a divorce and the cross-complainant $15 per month permanent alimony. This appeal is from that part of the final decree granting permanent alimony.
Appellant contends that the Chancellor was without power to grant alimony when the divorce was occasioned by the fault of the wife. This is true in cases of adultery but in all other cases, the matter is one in the discretion of the Chancellor. We have examined the record in this case and it fails to show that the Chancellor abused his discretion. The final decree is accordingly affirmed on authority of Randolph v Randolph, Fla., 1 So.2d 480, decided March 25, 1941.
Affirmed.
The effect of the opinion and decision in this case is to overrule the holding of this Court in Phinney v. Phinney, 77 Fla. 850, 82 So. 357, 358. In that case a divorce had been granted to the husband on the grounds of extreme cruelty and habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper. The final decree ordered the complainant husband to pay his former wife the sum of $100 per month as permanent alimony. In the case of Phinney v. Phinney, supra, this Court said:
'The statute of Florida governing the granting of permanent alimony upon decrees of divorce is as follows: 'In every decree of divorce in a suit by the wife, the court shall make such orders touching the maintenance, alimony and suit money of the wife, or any allowance to be made to her, and if any, the security to be given for the same, as from the circumstances of the parties and nature of the case may be fit. equitable and just; but no alimony shall be granted to an adulterous wife.' Section 1932, General Statutes of Florida 1906, Compiled Laws, 1914.
In the case of Randolph v. Randolph, decided March 25th, 1941, Fla., 1 So.2d 480, as pointed out in the opinion of Mr. Justice Terrell, in that case, the chancellor made no allowance for alimony but did award the appellant wife $10 per week as support for the younger of the two children. So the exact question here presented was not presented in that case, on the facts of the case. However, the question was raised in the briefs of counsel and was discussed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Terrell in that case, as follows:
'Appellee contends that a proper interpretation of the Statute so quoted bars any offending spouse from alimony if she was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krieger v. Krieger, CC--64
...some misconduct, should be awarded alimony. The court's opinion in Randolph was expressly followed shortly afterward in Cowan v. Cowan, 147 Fla. 473, 2 So.2d 869 (1941), where it was held that the trial court had discretion in all cases but that of adultery of the wife to grant alimony to t......
-
Cooper v. Cooper
...feature necessitating a result contra to that obtained in the Hughes case, supra. The Supreme Court of Florida in Cowan v. Cowan, 147 Fla 473, 2 So.2d 869, interpreting Florida Statutes 1941, Vol. 1, sec. 65.08, F.S.A., held that, except in cases of an adulterous wife, permanent alimony cou......
-
Cooper v. Cooper
...feature necessitating a result contra to that obtained in the Hughes case, supra. The Supreme Court of Florida in Cowan v. Cowan, 147 Fla. 473, 2 So. 2d 869, interpreting Florida Statutes 1941, Vol. 1, sec. 65.08, F. S.A., held that, except in cases of an adulterous wife, permanent alimony ......
-
Stern v. Stern
...case that there should be a lawful award of alimony, support money or maintainence, or other relief under its provisions. Cowan v. Cowan, 147 Fla. 473, 2 So.2d 869, overrulling Phinney v. Phinney, 77 Fla. 850, 82 So. 357; Brunner v. Brunner, 159 Fla. 762, 32 So.2d 736. There would seem to b......