Latta v. Latta, 59-201
| Decision Date | 02 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-201,59-201 |
| Citation | 121 So.2d 42 |
| Parties | Jean A. LATTA, Appellant, v. Parker A. LATTA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Zugravu, Buck & Hawkesworth, Miami, for appellant.
Gustafson & Vernis, Miami, for appellee.
Parker Latta, the husband of Jean Latta, brought suit for divorce in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. On February 26, 1959, the chancellor awarded a divorce to Parker and provided in the decree as follows
Unfortunately the parties were unable to agree upon a property settlement. On the 27th day of March 1959, the chancellor entered an amended final decree of divorce in which he provided as follows:
'Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, as follows:
'(a) That the plaintiff, Parker A. Latta, and the defendant, Jean A. Latta, be and they are hereby divorced of and from each other a vinculo matrimonii.
'(b) That the defendant be and she is hereby ordered and directed to forthwith convey by good and sufficient deed all of her right, title and interest in and to the following described property:
'The SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4, of Section 8, Township 55 South, Range 40 East, Dade County, Florida also known 10550 S.W. 97th Avenue, Miami, Florida, together with furniture, fixtures and equipment contained therein,
'and to execute any and all other instruments necessary to properly effectuate this conveyance.
'(c) That the plaintiff be and he is hereby ordered to pay over to the defendant as lump sum alimony a total sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars, which shall be paid as follows: Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars within five days from the entry of this decree, and the remining Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars on or before sixty days from the entry of this decree.
'(d) That the defendant be and she is hereby ordered and directed to fothwith deliver to the plaintiff the possession of that certain 1957, Chevrolet Bel Air Sedan now in her possession.
'(e) That the plaintiff be and he is hereby ordered and directed to forthwith convey by good and sufficient deed all of his right title in and to one only of the cemetery lots located in Memorial Park Cemetery, 6200 S.W. 77 th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida.
'(f) That upon receipt of the first $5,000.00 payment from the plaintiff, the defendant be and she is hereby ordered and directed to simultaneously therewith deliver possession of the real and personal property described in paragraph (b) above to the plaintiff.'
Jean Latta appeals and complains among other things that: (1) The evidence does not sustain the finding that she has been guilty of conduct giving rise to cause for divorce, but the evidence should sustain a finding that the husband was guilty of extreme cruelty. (2) The home, which was held as an estate by the entirety during the marriage, became a tenancy in common upon the entry of the decree of divorce and thereafter the chancellor was without authority to require her to convey her moiety to parker. (3) Her interest in the joint business was recognized by the first final decree of divorce and that the chancellor has therefore erred by his failure to set forth in the amended final decree the extent of her interest. Finally she urges that the court improperly failed to award her attorney's fees.
Appellant's contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the court's finding that she is guilty of the grounds charged or that the evidence supports a finding the husband was guilty of extreme cruelty is without merit. An examination of the record reveals sufficient evidence which, if believed by the chancellor, constituted grounds for his finding in favor of the husband and against the wife.
Upon the second point, which raises the question of the title to the residence, we are faced with a more difficult problem. It is possible that the chancellor, after having given the parties an ample opportunity to settle their financial affairs, thereafter, made for them a fair property settlement. The question is whether or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sebold v. Sebold
...250 (1964). Compare Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So.2d 356 (1945); Jones v. Jones, 121 So.2d 811 (Fla.App.1960); Latta v. Latta, 121 So.2d 42 (Fla.App. 1960) with Wood v. Wood, 104 So.2d 879 (Fla.App. 16 It is presumed that the entirety interest follows entirety funds. Ray v. Ray, 336......
-
Walton v. Walton, 73--651
...(Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727; Valentine v. Valentine, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 885; Boles v. Boles, supra; Latta v. Latta, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 42; Banfi v. Banfi, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 52; Bergh v. Bergh, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 481), and that upon divorce the title to such......
-
Sharpe v. Sharpe
...dispose of the property belonging to the parties as an incident to the divorce. Banfi v. Banfi, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 52; Latta v. Latta, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 42; Bell v. Bell, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 63. The courts have affirmed this rule in Rankin v. Rankin, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 4......
-
Bergh v. Bergh, C-198
...213.3 United States Casualty Company v. Maryland Casualty Company, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 741, 744.4 F.S. Sec. 689.15, F.S.A.; Latta v. Latta, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 42.5 Banfi v. Banfi, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 52.6 Brown v. Brown, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 298.7 Bell v. Bell, Fla.App.1959, 112 ......