Currie v. Currie

• Decision Date: 04 June 1935
• Citation: 162 So. 152,120 Fla. 28
• Parties: CURRIE v. CURRIE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

162 So. 152

120 Fla. 28

CURRIE v. CURRIE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

June 4, 1935

Suit by Ruth Currie against Harold R. Currie. Decree for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Highlands County; W J. Barker, judge.

COUNSEL

W. H Nollman, of Sebring, for appellant.

Charles E. Jones, of St. Petersburg, for appellee.

OPINION

DAVIS Justice.

This bizarre controversy originated in a marriage of expediency that ultimately resulted in the wife's suit for divorce a decree in her favor, and the award of alimony and attorney's fees to which the husband, by this appeal objects.

The bill of complaint alleges in substance that complainant is now and has been for the past two years, a bona fide resident of the state of Florida, and has lived near Avon Park; the complainant and defendant were married in Wauchula, Fla., December 22, 1927; that they lived together until October 18, 1933, but did not cohabit; that no children were born of said marriage; that she conducted herself as a true, chaste, and dutiful wife, doing everything to make his life comfortable and happy; that defendant has treated complainant with extreme cruelty, contrary to the marriage vows; that on only two occasions since they have been married have they occupied the same bed, and on neither occasion did any sexual relationship transpire; that, though complainant has made affectionate advances toward defendant, all such advances have been repulsed because defendant has said he did not care for complainant in that way, and that defendant has always refused to have sexual relations with complainant; that complainant was a normal, healthy woman, but as a result of this treatment her health was so impaired she had to see a physician, and was forced to leave her place of abode.

The substance of the evidence is to the effect that complainant's brother and defendant went into a joint venture in the orange grove business, building a small house in which they could live. The venture failed, and the brother went back North, leaving complainant and defendant living together in the same house. In order to avoid scandal, and because he thought she would make him a good wife, defendant married complainant in Wauchula December 22, 1927.

Two weeks after they were married she procured a job as waitress at Kenilworth Lodge in Sebring at $20 per month, plus tips. Defendant then obtained a job as real estate agent for a firm in Brighton, about 30 miles south of Sebring, on a commission basis, plus $10 per month and actual expenses. Complainant sent defendant from $2 to $3 per week on which to live, in addition to food. When the job at Kenilworth Lodge expired in April, 1928, complainant went to Brighton to live with defendant, and remained there for a year and a half.

There was a prenuptial agreement between the parties that the marriage relation would not include coitus until a future date when the wife's health would permit; the wife feeling that she was unable to stand pregnancy at the time fo her marriage, due to the fact that she had been out of the hospital only a short time. Complainant, however, was fully capable of intercourse at that time. Accordingly, no acts of intercourse were had between the parties. Within about one year, according to defendant's testimony, and within about five months, according to complainant's testimony, complainant signified her intention of willingness to begin acts of intercourse; but all her advances were accepted without response on defendant's part, defendant stating that he did not care for her in that way.

Defendant testified that his refusal to have intercourse was because his wife had nagged him until he had lost all love for her. Only twice during their married life did they occupy the same bed, and on neither occasion did intercourse take place. This continuous abstinence so plaintiff averred, caused her to become very nervous and had begun to affect her health detrimentally by causing excessive hemorrhages at periods, beginning a little while before she removed to St. Petersburg.

One day, in searching through her husband's trunk for old Christmas cards, complainant found several loose pages under a binding purporting to be the diary of her husband, carefully wrapped in an old newspaper, in which the statement was made that he had no desire or feeling for the opposite sex; but that he had delight in becoming intimate with those of his own sex, especially young men and boys.

These things so unnerved the wife that her health was becoming impaired, when she removed to St. Petersburg on October 18, 1933.

On April 13, 1934, the court awarded $25 per month as temporary alimony, and allowed $50 as counsel fees to complainant. Then on July 25, 1934, the court, in granting a divorce to the complainant, awarded $15 per month as permanent alimony, and $25 as permanent attorney fees; it having been shown that the husband worked on wages of $75 per month and out of which he was required to keep up his truck, as custodian of the city park at Avon Park, and pay his living expenses.

Since the chancellor granted the wife a divorce on the evidence adduced before him in her behalf in support of the charge of extreme cruelty charged and relied on as a ground for relief, we accept the final decree as being in legal effect a finding on the facts in favor of the complainant wife, which finding this court will not disturb, in the absence of a showing that the chancellor's conclusions on the facts are clearly wrong. No such showing has been made to appear in the present case. See Wetherington v. Wetherington, 57 Fla. 551, 49 So. 549.

But as a matter of law we must necessarily consider the proposition Assuming that the evidence adduced...