Howell v. Howell
| Decision Date | 05 February 1958 |
| Parties | Olga F. HOWELL, Appellant, v. Nathaniel W. HOWELL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Joe Creel, Miami, for appellant.
Hylan H. Kout, Miami Beach, for appellee.
After hearing the testimony and considering it in the light of the issues formed by the complaint and answer, the chancellor entered a decree divorcing the parties without determining which party should prevail in the suit.
Such procedure is contrary to our pronouncements in Sahler v. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206, 17 So.2d 105, and Macfadden v. Macfadden, 157 Fla. 477, 26 So.2d 502, and is not approved. The reasons for the present position are recorded in both cases and need not be repeated here.
The holding in these decisions was reannounced by the court in the case of Friedman v. Friedman, Fla., 100 So.2d 167, and anything appearing to the contrary in Williamson v. Williamson, 153 Fla. 357, 14 So.2d 712, was rescinded.
In consequence of the pronouncements in the three cases, the decree in the instant case is reversed with directions to decide which, if either, party should be the victor and then, if a divorce is granted one of them, to decide the questions involving alimony and suit money. Our decision on the propriety of the amounts already fixed for these purposes is reserved until a decree in accordance with these directions is entered.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Batteiger v. Batteiger
...plaintiff's attorney, addressed to the chancellor, and dated April 8, 1958. The letter stated that because of the case of Howell v. Howell, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 170, 'the court should grant the divorce specifically to one or the other party.' The writer contended that this case also stood fo......
-
Shannon v. Shannon
...§ 210.4 Heath v. Heath, supra, note 2; Foreman v. Foreman, supra, note 1.5 Dockery v. Dockery, Fal.1949, 43 So.2d 460; Howell v. Howell, Fla., 100 So.2d 170. ...
-
Bennett v. Bennett, 60-702
...whom it is granted.' See Sahler v. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206, 17 So. 2d 105; Macfadden v. Macfadden, 157 Fla. 477, 26 So.2d 502; Howell v. Howell, Fla. 1958, 100 So.2d 170; Batteiger v. Batteiger, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d The remaining points raised and argued by the appellant, other than those b......
-
Howell v. Howell
...the relatively short period of this marriage. 4 Affirmed. TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., concur. 1 Howell v. Howell, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 170, 171.2 Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Kulhanjian, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 896.3 At the time of the marriage the wife was 38, the hus......