Garfield v. Garfield
| Decision Date | 04 April 1952 |
| Citation | 58 So.2d 166 |
| Parties | GARFIELD v. GARFIELD. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Nichols & Whitehurst and Joseph W. Nichols, all of Clearwater, for appellant.
Marshall & Rives and Alfred P. Marshall, all of Clearwater, for appellee.
On September 11, 1951, the appellant filed a suit for divorce against his wife, Mary Adele Garfield, alleging that he was a bona fide resident of the State of Florida and had been such resident for more than 90 days immediately prior thereto.
On October 11, 1951, the appellee filed her answer in which she denied all of the alleged grounds for divorce and also his allegation about residence. Her answer contained various allegations concerning joint and individual properties, the business connections, earnings and ability to earn of the appellant, and of her own needs and necessities to live and to defend the suit. She further alleged that they were living apart through no fault of hers and that she was entitled to alimony unconnected with divorce and attorneys' fees, both temporary and permanent.
On the 18th of October, 1951, pursuant to notice a hearing was had before the Circuit Judge on the appellee's request for temporary support and maintenance and temporary attorneys' fees. The appellant's attorneys objected to the hearing on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. This objection was overruled. The appellee offered testimony with reference to the need for the support of the appellee, the appellant's ability to support her, and the testimony of two attorneys as to a reasonable temporary attorneys' fee.
The Court made an order requiring the plaintiff to pay the sum of $100 per week as temporary alimony and support money and the sum of $1,000 as temporary attorneys' fees. This appeal is prosecuted from that order.
Two questions are presented: (1) Did the lower Court have jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, and (2) Was the testimony presented by the appellee sufficient to justify the Chancellor in making an award of $100 per week as temporary alimony and support money and $1,000 for temporary attorneys' fees?
The Circuit Court had full jurisdiction to determine all questions presented. It had jurisdiction to determine whether or not the appellant was a bona fide resident of the State of Florida and to pass upon the question of divorce if he was such a resident. The Court had jurisdiction to grant the wife alimony unconnected with divorce. See Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243, 2 So.2d 870; Schwenk v. Schwenk, 159 Fla. 694, 32 So.2d 734; Fairlamb v. Fairlamb, 156 Fla. 104, 22 So.2d 580.
On the question of temporary alimony and attorneys' fees, the undisputed evidence shows that the appellee was a woman of advanced age who had been married to the appellant for over 30 years; she was in poor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ugarte v. Ugarte, s. 91-401
...Jane L. Estreicher & Gerald I. Kornreich, Imputing Income: Proving the Unprovable, Fla.B.J. April 1985, at 56; see also Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So.2d 166 (Fla.1952); McRae v. McRae, 52 So.2d 908 (Fla.1951); Anderson v. Anderson, 451 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA1984); Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So.2d 7......
-
Seitz v. Seitz, s. 84-1447
...his spouse in substantially the same manner of living. Klein v. Klein, 122 So.2d 205, 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). See also Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So.2d 166 (Fla.1952); McRae v. McRae, 52 So.2d 908 (Fla.1951); Anderson v. Anderson, 451 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So.2d 7......
-
Waldera v. Waldera
...the same amount, absent evidence to the contrary." Mata v. Mata, 185 So. 3d 1271, 1272-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). See Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So. 2d 166, 167-68 (Fla. 1952) (observing that historical ability to earn $350 net per week, "will be presumed to continue unless the contrary is shown,......
-
Lafferty v. Lafferty
...that supports a finding the spouse can continue to earn the same amount, absent evidence to the contrary.” (citing Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So.2d 166, 167 (Fla.1952); Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985))). And in those cases where the court cannot use historical earnings, for e......