Hubble v. Hubble

• Decision Date: 19 September 1968
• Docket Number: No. J--415,J--415
• Citation: Hubble v. Hubble, 214 So.2d 896 (Fla. App. 1968)
• Parties: Geneva L. HUBBLE, Appellant, v. O. G. HUBBLE, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 896

214 So.2d 896

Geneva L. HUBBLE, Appellant, v. O. G. HUBBLE, Appellee.

No. J--415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 19, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1968.

Ernest A. Sellers, of Airth, Sellers & Lewis, Live Oak, for appellant.

A. K. Black, Lake City, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing a complaint for divorce, custody of minor children and other relief, and the order denying the petition for rehearing.

A review of the evidence reveals that the appellant and the appellee had lived a somewhat stormy, at times, married life since about 1951. That the appellant had on previous occasions made application for divorce, but for some reason or another, no divorce was ever granted and the parties continued their stormy marital relations. There were four children born of this union, ranging in their present day ages from 15 years of age down to 6 or 7 years of age. The parties lived in a house trailer, which was moved from time to time to accommodate the appellee husband, in his work as a superintendent for a construction company.

Considerable testimony was taken having a direct bearing upon the statutory grounds for divorce, as well as to the best interest of the children insofar as custody was concerned.

The chancellor denied the prayer for divorce, upon the ground that the wife had failed to sustain the allegations of her complaint, and dismissed the complaint, with prejudice. On petition for rehearing, the chancellor modified or clarified said decree to the extent that the same should not amount to prejudice against allowance of further proceedings for the support of the plaintiff and the children should the defendant fail to provide such support as he is now doing and as required by law.

The chancellor's findings of fact should not and will not be disturbed by us insofar as the decree denying the divorce is concerned, but it is...